UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

AGRICULTURAL   SCIENCES 

Vol.  1,  No.  13,  pp.  495-587  March  26,  1917 


EXPERIMENTS  ON  THE  EFFECTS  OF  CON- 
STITUENTS   OF    SOLID    SMELTER 
WASTES  ON  BARLEY  GROWTH 
IN  POT  CULTURES 

BY 

C.  B.  LIPMAN  and  W.  F.   GEEIOKE 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

..  496 

..  496 


Introduction   

Objects  of  the  experiments 

Methods  of  the  experiments -  497 

Eesults  of  the  experiments 4" 

Color  of  leaves 500 

Tillering    - 501 

Height  of   plants 503 

Germination   of    seeds 504 

Yields  obtained  50^ 

Greenhouse  soil   (copper  sulfate)  505 

Adobe  soil   (copper  sulfate)  - 509 

Oakley   soil    (copper   sulfate)  512 

Greenhouse  soil    (zinc  sulfate)  514 

Greenhouse    soil    (ferrous    sulfate)  ^>17 

Greenhouse  soil    (lead  sulfate)  519 

Greenhouse   soil    (potash   alum)  - 522 

Greenhouse  soil    (manganese  sulfate)  525 

Greenhouse  soil    (manganese  chloride)  529 

Comparison  of  our  results  with  those  of  previous  investigators 533 

Copper  sulfate  533 

Zinc   sulfate   539 

Ferrous   sulfate  5*1 

Lead   sulfate    543 

Manganese  sulfate  and  manganese  chloride 544 


496        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

PAGE 

Additional    investigations    546 

Nitrification    546 

Nitrogen  content  of  the  grain 550 

Absorption  of  metals  by  soil  and  plant 551 

General   and   practical   considerations 554 

Theoretical    considerations    558 

Summary  559 

INTRODUCTION 

In  19131  the  senior  author  and  F.  H.  Wilson  reported  briefly 
the  results  of  some  preliminary  investigations  on  the  effects  of 
CuS04,  MnS04,  ZnS04,  and  H2S04  on  the  growth  of  wheat  and 
of  vetch  in  a  humus  sand  in  pots,  under  greenhouse  conditions. 
One  year  prior  to  the  appearance  of  the  report  just  cited,  the 
present  authors  instituted  new  and  more  complete  experiments 
with  the  objects  noted  below.  These  experiments,  covering  a 
period  of  three  years,  are  now  complete  in  several  significant 
phases  and  we  are  therefore  proceeding  to  a  discussion  of  them. 

The  importance  of  a  study  of  this  subject  is  attested  by  the 
recent  appearance  of  monographic  works  devoted  to  it,  by  the 
significance  of  the  practical  bearings  of  the  physiological  studies 
involved  and,  in  view  of  these,  by  the  conflicting  nature  of  the 
results  thus  far  obtained,  and  the  evident  non-consideration,  by 
investigators,  of  the  nature  of  the  medium  of  plant  growth  as 
a  vital  determinant  of  the  results.  Some  of  the  outstanding 
early  work  on  the  inorganic  poisons,  particularly  copper,  as 
affecting  plant  growth  is  either  reviewed  or  cited  in  the  com- 
munication above  referred  to.  In  this  paper  no  historical  sketch 
will  be  given,  but  important  investigations  which  may  be  rel- 
evant to  our  findings  will  be  discussed  in  connection  with  the 
results  and  meaning  of  our  experiments. 

OBJECTS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

The  objects  of  our  experiments  were  as  follows:  (1)  To 
ascertain  whether  metals  like  copper,  zinc,  lead,  iron,  and  man- 
ganese used  in  the  sulfate  form  in  the  soil  as  a  medium  are  toxic 
in  any  quantity  to  barley.  (2)  To  ascertain  whether  the  sub- 
stances named  can  be  toxic  in  soils  if  found  in  quantities  which 


i  Bot.  Gaz.,  vol.  55,  no.  6,  p.  409,  June,  1913. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  497 

would  be  possible  in  the  vicinity  of  smelters.  (3)  To  ascertain 
whether  the  same  substances  would  be  a  menace  to  lands  more 
remote  from  smelters  if  carried  down  to  them  in  solution  in 
irrigation  water  of  streams  polluted  by  solid  smelter  wastes. 
(4)  To  ascertain  whether  the  compounds  named  may  exercise  a 
stinulating  effect  on  plants  grown  in  soil  as  a  medium  and,  if 
so,  whether  the  effect  noted  is  ephemeral  or  permanent  in  one 
way  or  another.  (5)  To  ascertain  whether  potassium  aluminum 
sulfate  can  have  any  value  as  a  source  of  potash  or  as  a  plant 
stimulant. 


METHODS  OP  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

The  experiments  were  carried  out  in  the  greenhouse,  the 
successive  crops  being  grown  at  different  seasons  of  the  year 
so  as  to  allow  a  study  of  the  effects  of  a  variety  of  climatic  con- 
ditions. The  plants  were  not  artificially  shaded  during  the 
period  of  growth.  The  soil  used  in  most  of  the  experiments  was 
a  clay  adobe  containing  a  very  good  supply  of  organic  matter  to 
start  witb,  and  was  made  up  by  adding  barnyard  manure  to  our 
hillside  clay  adobe  soil.  The  other  soils  employed  in  a  number 
of  the  experiments  which  served  as  checks  on  the  heavier  soils 
were  a  blow  sand  from  Oakley,  California,  and  the  clay  adobe 
soil  above  named  unmixed  with  manure.  Evidence  is  thus 
obtained  of  the  effects  on  barley  of  at  least  one  of  the  salts 
mentioned,  in  four  types  of  soils,  since  a  humus  sand  was,  as 
explained  above,  employed  in  the  preliminary  experiments.  The 
chemical  analysis  by  the  Hilgard  strong  acid  digestion  method 
of  the  humus  clay  adobe,  of  the  blow  sand,  and  of  the  clay  adobe 
yielded  the  results  shown  in  table  1  (p.  498). 

The  containers  for  the  soils  just  described  were  ordinary 
earthenware  pots  nine  inches  in  diameter  at  the  top.  These  pots 
were  paraffined  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  the  absorption  of 
salts  by  the  porous  walls.  From  ten  to  twelve  pounds  of  soil 
were  used  per  pot,  depending  upon  the  kind  of  soil  employed. 
The  salts  were  applied  in  solution  in  all  cases  except  in  that  of 
the  lead  sulfate,  which,  owing  to  its  insolubility,  was  mixed,  in 
the  form  of  powder,  with  the  soil.     The  mixing  was  done  as 


498        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  I 

Chemical  Analyses  of  Soils  Used 

Greenhouse 

humus  clay  Clay  Oakley 

adobe  adobe  sand 

Insoluble   residue   74.03  85.50  92.04 

Soluble    silica    9.18  7.40  3.14 

Lime    (CaO)    2.26  1.05  .66 

Iron    Oxide    (FeS03)  4.59  3.61  3.60 

Aluminum    oxide    (A1203)  5.80  3.85  1.24 

Sulfuric  acid   (S03)  

Manganese    sesqui-oxide     (Mn304)          .13  .13  Trace 

Magnesium  oxide    (MgO) 72  .54  .22 

Potash   (K20)   62  .25  .30 

Soda    (Na20) 43  .21  .17 

Phosphoric  acid   (P205)  48  .20  .16 

Moisture   and    volatile   matter 11.68  4.70  1.72 


Total 100.78  100.44  100.32 

Nitrogen    31  .12  .03 

Humus    3.20  1.85  .30 

Nitrogen  in  humus 6.75  8.00  11.80 

thoroughly  as  possible  to  approach  closely  a  uniform  distribution 
of  the  salt.  Obviously  such  thorough  mixing  as  could  be  desired 
was  not  attained  with  the  PbS04 ;  hence  one  reason  for  the 
irregularity  of  some  of  the  results  obtained  therewith.  In  the  case 
of  the  copper,  lead,  manganese  and  zinc  sulfates  the  treatments 
were  made  as  parts  per  million  of  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil, 
whereas  the  ferrous  sulfate  was  supplied  in  much  larger  quan- 
tities on  the  percentage  basis.  The  precise  quantities  of  the  salts 
employed  are  shown  in  the  tables  submitted  below,  but  it  is 
added  here,  in  explanation,  that  the  treatments  as  indicated  there 
represent  aggregate  amounts  in  the  case  of  the  copper,  zinc,  iron, 
and  potash  alum  series  of  two  separate  applications,  one  prior 
to  planting  the,  first  and  the  other  prior  to  planting  the  second 
crop  of  barley  in  the  humus  clay  adobe  soil.  It  will  further  be 
noted  that  all  the  salts  were  added  in  the  form  of  sulfates  of 
the  metals  studied,  except  as  otherwise  stated. 

Water  was  applied  to  the  surface  of  the  soil  in  irrigating. 
As  a  rule,  that  operation  was  carried  out  twice  a  week,  or  as 
needed,  and  400  c.c.  of  tap  water  was  the  amount  used  at  every 
irrigation.     From  earlier  tests  it  appeared  that  this  quantity  of 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  499 

irrigation  water  and  the  mode  of  its  application  were  most 
desirable  under  the  circumstances  and  were  such  as  to  preclude 
losses  of  water  and  salts  by  percolation  and  drainage. 

Barley  (Hordeum  vulgar e)  was  the  crop  grown  throughout 
all  series  of  experiments.  The  variety  employed  was  a  selected 
and  vigorous  strain  of  Belcli.  Three  crops  were  grown  in  suc- 
cession on  the  humus  clay  adobe  soil,  the  first  and  third  crops 
being  produced  in  the  period  between  September  and  January 
of  the  years  1912-1913  and  1913-1914  respectively,  and  the  sec- 
ond crop  between  March  and  June,  1913.  Only  two  crops  were 
grown  on  the  non-humus  clay  adobe  soil,  in  periods  correspond 
ing  to  the  last  two  for  the  humus  clay  adobe  soil.  One  crop  only 
was  grown  on  the  blow-sand  soil. 

At  the  time  of  harvest,  which  was  carried  out  when  the  grain 
was  thoroughly  mature,  the  plants  were  cut  as  close  as  possible 
to  the  ground.  The  total  crop  thus  obtained  was  placed  in  paper 
bags  and  dried  until  the  weight  was  constant.  Then  the  weights, 
separately,  of  grain  and  straw  were  determined.  At  the  same 
time  the  soil  in  the  pots  was  thoroughly  worked  over  to  obtain 
the  roots  produced  in  every  case.  In  some  instances  nitrification 
.studies  on  the  soil  were  made,  and  also  determinations  of  the 
amounts  of  salts  remaining  behind  in  the  soils  after  harvest, 
and  the  amounts  taken  up  by  the  crop.  Enough  of  these  anal- 
yses, as  well  as  of  nitrogen  determinations  in  the  grain,  were 
accomplished  to  ascertain  the  tendency  of  these  conditions  in 
the  plants  and  soils  studied. 

RESULTS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS 

It  will  undoubtedly  be  of  interest  to  our  readers  to  learn  first, 
from  the  results  of  our  experiments,  something  of  the  appear- 
ance, height,  tillering,  color,  and  similar  observations  on  the 
growth  of  the  barley,  and  later  the  yields  obtained,  composition 
of  the  grain,  and  changes  in  the  soil.  The  following  general 
statements  may  therefore  be  made  at  this  point  with  respect 
to  the  first  class  of  data  obtained  through  the  experiments.  The 
different  features  will  be  considered  separately. 


500       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

Color  of  Leaves 

In  the  first  crop  on  the  greenhouse  soil  the  color  of  the  blade 
was  a  much  deeper  green  in  the  treated  pots,  no  matter  what  salt 
was  used,  than  in  the  untreated  ones.  This  was  true  despite  the 
fact  that  the  leaves  were  dark  green  in  the  plants  of  the  control 
pots,  which  had  a  plentiful  supply  of  available  nitrogen  at  their 
disposal.  The  plants  of  the  pots  treated  with  copper  sulfate 
showed,  however,  a  darker  green  color  than  those  in  the  pots 
treated  with  other  salts.  That  excessive  nitrogen  feeding  was 
probably  the  cause  of  the  very  deep  green  color  of  the  leaves 
referred  to  was  further  indicated  by  the  tendency  to  lodge  mani- 
fested by  the  plants  in  the  copper  and  lead  series  and  to  some 
extent  in  the  other  series.  In  the  second  crop,  prior  to  the  plant- 
ing of  which  the  salt  content  of  all  series  in  the  greenhouse  soil, 
except  the  lead  and  the  manganese,  was  doubled,  manifestations 
as  to  color  similar  to  those  above  described  were  observed.  These 
were  not  so  marked,  however,  even  though  the  contrast  between 
the  plants  on  the  treated  and  those  on  the  untreated  soils  was 
easily  discernible.  As  a  result  of  the  smaller  amount  of  stimula- 
tion in  the  crop  under  consideration,  no  tendency  to  lodging  was 
noted,  and  the  plants  were  erect  and  rigid.  In  the  third  crop 
on  the  same  soil  without  further  salt  treatment,  there  was  only 
a  slightly  deeper  green  color  in  the  leaves  of  plants  on  the 
treated  than  in  those  on  the  untreated  soil.  Again,  the  plants 
were  erect  and  vigorous  in  appearance  throughout. 

On  the  Oakley  blow-sand  soil,  in  which  only  copper  was 
tested,  was  discerned  a  similarly  striking  effect  on  the  color  of 
the  barley  blade  exercised  by  the  salt  treatment  of  the  soil.  In 
the  clay  adobe  soil  similar  observations  were  made.  We  are 
therefore  led  to  believe  that  the  effect  of  the  salts  in  question 
seems  to  be  general  in  at  least  one  direction  for  all  soils,  namely, 
for  the  production  of  a  deeper  green  color  in  the  leaves  of  plants 
growing  on  the  treated  soil.  The  stimulating  effect  in  that 
direction  shows  a  tendency  to  diminish  at  first  rapidly,  then 
slowly,  in  the  succeeding  crops.  The  probable  causes  of  this 
manifestation,  as  briefly  referred  to  above,  will  be  mentioned 
later  in  connection  with  the  studies  of  the  treated  soils  them- 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  501 

selves.  As  further  evidence  of  the  general  nature  of  the  effects 
of  the  salts  in  question  in  soils  on  the  color  of  the  leaves  of 
plants,  we  may  cite  again  the  observations  on  that  point  made 
by  both  Pammel 2  and  Van  Slyke.3  Those  investigators  reported 
marked  deepening  of  the  color  of  the  leaves  of  tomatoes  and 
other  plants  due  to  treatment  of  the  culture  soil  with  CuS04. 
Other  kinds  of  plants,  therefore,  as  well  as  other  soil  types  than 
those  employed  by  us  seem  to  be  similarly  influenced  by  CuS04 
with  reference  to  color  production  in  leaves. 

Tillering 
During  the  first  two  crops  grown,  the  amount  of  tillering 
occurring  in  the  plants  on  the  greenhouse  soil  was  studied.  This 
was  done  with  the  idea  of  noting  if  any  close  correlation  existed 
between  the  amount  of  growth  and  dry  matter  produced  by  the 
treatment  and  the  number  of  tillers  formed.  Our  observations 
give  a  negative  reply  to  this  query.  Thus  in  the  first  crop  of  the 
copper  series  the  number  of  tillers  per  pot  of  four  plants  varied 
from  thirteen  to  thirty-one  over  the  whole  range  of  concentra- 
tions of  copper  sulfate  employed.  This  in  itself  would  of  course 
be  of  little  significance  in  connection  with  the  question  under 
consideration  if  there  was  a  decrease  or  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  tillers  with  a  change  in  concentration  of  CuS04.  This 
was  not  strictly  the  case,  however,  and  to  illustrate  we  may  say 
that  the  largest  number  of  tillers  in  the  first  crop  of  the  CuS04 
series  was  in  one  of  the  pots  receiving  1500  p.  p.  m.  CuS04 ; 
the  smallest  number  of  tillers  was  produced  in  the  pots  remain- 
ing untreated.  Moreover,  there  was  but  little  agreement  in  that 
respect  between  duplicate  pots  receiving  CuS04.  Thus  the 
duplicate  of  the  pot  above  mentioned  as  producing  the  largest 
number  of  tillers  (thirty-one)  produced  only  twenty-one,  and 
such  large  discrepancies  between  duplicate  pots  were  common. 
The  fact  remains,  nevertheless,  that  while  small  concentrations 
and  large  concentrations  of  CuS04  do  not  differ  in  their  effects 
on  the  number  of  tillers,  some  CuS04  as  against  no  CuS04  ap- 
pears to  be  of  definite  effect  in  the  first  crop.     Thus  in  the  large 


2  Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  no.  16,  1892. 

sN.  Y.   (Geneva)   Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  no.  41,  1892. 


502        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

range  of  concentrations  employed  in  the  copper  series,  there  was 
no  pot  receiving  CnS04  in  any  quantity  which  did  not  produce 
more  tillers  than  any  of  the  control  pots,  which  showed  from 
thirteen  to  fourteen  tillers  in  each  of  three  pots  employed  as 
untreated  controls.  In  general,  therefore,  it  seems  that  in  the 
first  crop,  copper  sulfate  does  stimulate  tillering,  but  it  does  so 
irregularly  and  small  amounts  of  the  salt  appear  to  be  as  effect- 
ive in  that  direction  as  large  amounts.  In  the  second  crop  of 
the  CuS04  series  the  number  of  tillers  was  decreased  throughout 
because  of  climate  and  other  obvious  effects  accompanying  the 
conditions  of  the  experiment  which  are  above  described.  Never- 
theless, the  treated  pots  were,  with  very  few  exceptions,  decidedly 
superior  in  tiller  production  to  the  untreated  pots,  which,  again, 
agreed  well  among  themselves.  Otherwise,  the  tillering  of  the 
second  crop  in  the  CuS04  series  was  not  significantly  different 
from  that  of  the  first  crop. 

In  the  first  crop  of  the  zinc  sulfate  series  the  number  of 
tillers  was  very  markedly  larger  than  in  the  first  crop  of  the 
copper  sulfate  series.  Thus  the  largest  number  of  tillers  pro- 
duced in  the  first  crop  of  the  copper  series  is  about  equivalent 
to  the  smallest  number  of  tillers  in  the  first  crop  of  the  zinc 
sulfate  series.  In  one  pot  of  the  zinc  series  sixty-five  tillers  were 
produced  by  four  plants,  a  number  more  than  twice  as  great  as 
the  maximum  in  the  first  crop  of  the  copper  series.  Moreover, 
the  agreement  between  duplicate  pots  was  on  the  whole  much 
better  in  this  regard  in  the  zinc  than  in  the  copper  series,  despite 
the  fact  that  several  large  discrepancies  were  noted.  In  the  first 
crop,  therefore,  the  zinc  sulfate,  like  copper  sulfate,  has  not 
only  stimulated  tiller  production,  but  has  done  so  to  a  much 
more  marked  degree  than  the  last-named  substance.  In  the 
second  crop,  however,  conditions  and  results  are  considerably 
changed.  Thus,  whereas  the  stimulating  effects  of  CuS04  on 
tiller  production  are  clearly  manifest  throughout  the  series, 
even  after  the  salt  concentration  is  doubled  in  the  same  soil, 
only  one  case  of  stimulation  in  that  respect  (at  the  lowest  con- 
centration) is  noted  in  the  ZnS04  series  under  similar  conditions. 
Moreover,  in  the  CuS04  series  we  find  scarcely  one  undoubted 
case  of  depression  in  tillering  even  in  the  second  crop,  due  to 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  503 

the  treatment  of  the  soil,  but  such  depression  obtains  almost 
without  exception  in  the  second  crop  of  the  ZnS04  series.  In 
other  words,  a  very  marked  decrease  in  the  number  of  tillers 
results  from  the  second  ZnS04  application  to  the  greenhouse  soil, 
both  absolutely  and  relatively  speaking,  in  comparison  with 
either  the  untreated  control  pots  or  with  the  treated  pots  of  the 
copper  series.  Much  better  agreement  between  duplicate  pots 
with  reference  to  tillering  is  noted  in  the  second  crop  of  the 
ZnS04  series  than  in  the  other  series  above  described. 

In  the  case  of  the  potash  alum  series,  in  the  first  crop  the 
results  were  very  similar  to  those  obtained  in  the  corresponding 
copper  series  except  that  tillering  was  not  so  markedly  stimu- 
lated as  in  the  latter.  In  the  second  crop,  also,  the  results  of 
the  potash  alum  series  were  not  strikingly  different  as  regards 
tillering  from  those  in  the  copper  series. 

In  the  first  crop  of  the  FeS04  and  PbS04  series  no  observa- 
tions were  made  on  tillering  owing  to  the  poor  development  of 
plants  and  their  prostrate  mode  of  growth,  which  was  especially 
marked  in  the  lead  series.  Observations  on  the  amount  of  tiller- 
ing produced  in  the  second  crop  of  the  FeS04  series  indicated 
that  the  stimulating  effect  of  the  FeS04  on  tillering  was  not 
so  great  as  that  of  either  copper  or  potash  alum,  but  greater 
than  that  of  zinc. 

In  the  third  crops  of  all  series  scarcely  any  tillering  was 
observed,  the  plants  producing  for  the  most  part  single  upright 
stalks.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  stimulating  effects  of  the 
salts  tested  with  respect  to  tillering  are  ephemeral  in  their 
nature,  but  are  more  distinctly  so  with  some  salts  than  with 
others. 

Height  of  Plants 
In  the  second  crop  only,  observations  and  measurements  were 
made  of  the  average  and  total  heights  of  plants  produced  in  the 
CuS04,  ZnS04,  FeS04,  and  potash  alum  series.  These  indicated 
definite  increases  in  height  of  plants  produced  by  certain  concen- 
trations of  all  the  salts  named,  over  those  attained  by  the  plants 
in  the  untreated  pots.  The  superior  height  of  the  plants  was, 
however,  variously  distributed  through  the  series.     Thus  it  was 


504        University  of  California  Public-alums  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

apparent  in  the  first  five  lowest  concentrations  of  the  CuS04 
series.  It  did  not  show  in  the  first  two  concentrations  of  ZnS04. 
but  in  all  others,  and  was  clearly  manifest  almost  throughout  the 
potash  alum  series.  In  the  FeS04  series  the  heights  followed 
the  general  observations  just  recorded  for  the  ZnS04  series  so 
far  as  comparison  with  controls  is  concerned.  As  regards  abso- 
lute heights  of  plants  the  ZnS04  series  showed  the  highest,  and 
the  potash  alum  series  was  a  close  second,  with  the  others  con- 
siderably behind. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  with  regard  to  stimulation  both 
of  tillering  and  of  tallness,  ZnSO,  is  superior  to  the  other  salts. 
The  agreement  between  duplicate  pots  in  respecl  to  the  height 
of  plants  was  far  more  satisfactory  than  that  for  tillering.  None 
of  the  actual  data  are  given  here  because  of  the  necessity  for 
brevity  in  such  papers  and  because  of  the  decidedly  minor  sig- 
nificance of  the  results  in  connection  with  the  main  issue  under 
examination. 

Germination  of  Seeds 

In  all  of  the  series  under  discussion,  the  germination  of  seeds 
was  more  rapid  in  the  sail  treated  soils  than  in  those  untreated, 
at  least  up  to  certain  very  considerable  concentrations  of  the 
salts.  Exceptions  to  this  rule  were  of  course  found  in  certain 
concentrations  of  the  salts  which  entirely  inhibited  growth  and 
in  those  which  almost  did  so;  but  in  all  pots  in  which  the  salt 
concentrations  were  not  of  that  older,  germination  was  much 
more  rapid  than  in  those  which  remained  untreated.  The  stimu- 
lation in  respect  to  germination  was  about  of  the  same  degree 
in  all  concentrations  of  every  salt  which  would  at  all  stimulate 
germination,  larger  amounts  of  sails  not  differing  from  the 
smaller  ones.  Certain  definite  differences,  however,  existed  in 
that  regard  among  the  different  salts.  Thus  CuS04  stimulated 
germination  most,  ZnS04  was  second  in  order,  FeSO,  third,  and 
the  other  salts  exerted  only  a  slight  influence.  Our  findings  in 
this  respect,  therefore,  are  again  in  accord  with  those  of  Pam- 
mel  4   and  Van    Slyke,5   which   are   above    cited,    and    also   with 


*  Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  no.  16,  1892. 

5N,  Y.   (Geneva)   Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  no.  41,  1892. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  505 

those  of  many  other  investigators,  among-  whom  may  be  men- 
tioned Effront.6  It  may  be  added  here  that  the  stimulating- 
effects  of  the  salts  studied  with  respect  to  germination  of  seed 
were  noted  in  the  first  and  second  crops.  In  the  third  crop  there 
was  little,  if  any,  superiority  in  germination  of  the  seeds  in  the 
treated  as  against  the  untreated  pots.  In  other  words,  we  have 
noted  that  in  regard  to  germination,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  tiller- 
ing and  other  superficial  characters,  the  salts  employed  stimulated 
the  barley  for  one  or  two  seasons  at  certain  concentrations  and 
after  that  showed  no  marked  effect  in  either  direction.  It  should 
also  be  observed  that  in  cases  in  which  such  salts  as  CuS04  at 
higher  concentrations  retarded  germination  in  the  first  crop,  the 
retarding  effect  disappeared  in  the  second  and  third  crops. 

YIELDS  OBTAINED 

In  studying  the  yields  of  barley  in  all  the  series,  the  weights 
of  straw,  of  grain,  and  of  roots  were  determined  in  every  case 
after  drying  at  100°  C  and  bringing  to  constant  weight.  All 
such  determinations  are  given  in  the  tables  which  follow,  to- 
gether with  other  necessary  data.  It  will  be  noted  that  the 
yields  of  the  single  pots  in  every  duplicate  pair  are  given,  as 
well  as  the  averages.  This  is  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out 
the  large  variations  in  yield  frequently  obtained  in  duplicate 
pots  of  soil  cultures  and  for  that  of  allowing  our  colleagues  to 
study  our  data  at  first  hand  and  reach  their  own  conclusions. 
The  different  salts  will  be  considered  separately  below,  with  one 
type  of  soil  at  a  time. 

Copper  Sulfate — Greenhouse  Soil 

Tables  II«,  II b,  and  lie  give  the  results  obtained  with  CuS04 
in  three  successive  crops  on  the  greenhouse  soil.  Through  an 
error,  as  was  stated  above,  a  second  application  of  CuS04  equiva- 
lent to  the  first  was  made  to  the  soil  prior  to  planting  the 
second  crop,  so  that  for  the  second  and  third  crops,  amounts  of 
CuS04  were  present  in  the  soil  which  were  far  larger  than  those 
intended   for  the   study.     While,   therefore,   we   have   obtained 


Effront,  J.,  Comptes  Rendus  Acad.  Sci.   (Paris),  vol.  141,  p.  625,  1905. 


506       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

three  successive  crops  on  the  same  soil,  only  one  of  them,  the 
third,  was  influenced  purely  by  the  residual  effects  of  the  CuS04 
application  remaining  after  the  production  of  one  crop.  With 
these  observations  in  mind,  let  us  now  consider  the  results  of 
the  CuS04  applications  in  the  three  crops  harvested  on  the 
greenhouse  soil. 

First  Orop 
The  growth  of  the  plants  in  the  first  crop  was  very  rank  in 
the  controls  as  well  as  in  the  treated  pots,  with  the  result  that 
high  yields  of  dry  matter  were  obtained.  This  was  doubtless  due 
to  a  large  supply  of  available  plant  food  in  the  fresh  greenhouse 
soil  and  especially  to  the  high  nitrate  content  and  high  nitrify- 
ing power  of  the  soil.  The  deep  green  color  of  the  leaves,  above 
referred  to  and  the  tendency  shown  by  the  plants  to  lodge  seem 
to  confirm  this  view,  and  it  is  further  supported  by  nitrification 
studies  which  we  carried  out  and  which  are  reported  below. 
Because  of  the  conditions  for  rank  growth,  however,  tin- 
growing  season  was  lengthened  and  scarcely  any  grain  was  pro- 
duced. The  data  of  the  first  section  of  table  II  therefore  give 
only  the  yields  of  straw  and  roots.  Despite  considerable  dis- 
crepancy among  the  yields  of  duplicate  pots,  there  can  be  no 
question  after  an  examination  of  the  data  for  the  firsl  crop  that 

CuS04,  in  the  i titrations  and  tinder  the  conditions  employed, 

has  caused  the  barley  to  produce  more  dry  matter  than  was  pro- 
duced in  the  control  pots.  Such  stimulated  growth  is  apparent 
throughout  the  whole  series  of  copper  concentrations  varying 
from  50  p.  p.  m.  to  1500  p.  p.  m.  Concentrations  above  1000  p.  p. 
m.  seem  to  be  definitely  more  toxic,  or  at  least  less  stimulating,  to 
the  barley  plants  than  lower  concentrations  if  average  yields  are 
adopted  as  criteria.  Such  procedure  may,  however,  be  unjusti- 
fiable because  of  the  large  discrepancies  among  the  yields  of 
duplicate  pots.  That  the  increases  in  yields  of  dry  matter  of 
barley  are  real  and  not  accidental  is  evidenced  not  only  by  their 
manifestation  in  the  whole  series,  but  also  by  the  magnitude  of 
the  increases  involved.  Thus  in  the  concentration  of  600  p.  p.  m. 
CuS04  an  increase  in  yield  over  that  of  the  control  pot  was 
obtained  which  was  equivalent  to  nearly  50  per  cent  of  the  total 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  507 

yield  of  the  latter,  and  in  several  other  cases  such  increases 
amounted  to  30  per  cent  or  35  per  cent. 

Giving  brief  consideration  now  to  the  yields  of  roots  alone, 
we  find  that  they,  too,  like  the  total  dry  matter  in  general,  are 
definitely  affected  by  the  CuS04  treatment.  Increased  root  pro- 
duction over  that  in  the  control  pots  is  found  in  all  the  pots 
having  concentrations  from  50  p.  p.  m.  to  600  p.  p.  m.  CuS04, 
inclusive.  Beyond  that  point,  however,  unlike  the  case  of  the 
total  dry  matter  considered,  the  increased  concentrations  of 
CuS04  appear  to  depress  root  development  very  definitely.  The 
decreases  continue  steadily  more  significant  as  the  concentration 
of  CuS04  increases  from  600  p.  p.  m.  to  1100  p.  p.  m.,  when  the 
toxic  effect  seems  to  reach  a  stationary  point  and  no  further 
decreases  occur,  even  though  more  CuS04  is  added  up  to 
concentrations  of  1500  p.  p.  m. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  effects  of  CuS04  on  the  first 
crop  of  barley  in  the  greenhouse  soil  in  regard  to  both  tops  and 
roots  produced,  it  appears  that  we  must  consider  the  point  of 
stimulation  to  cease  at  600  p.  p.  m.  CuS04.  It  is  possible  in 
addition  that  even  the  700  and  800  p.  p.  m.  concentrations  may 
be  looked  upon  as  still  stimulating  to  both  tops  and  roots  of 
the  barley  plant  in  the  soil  in  question.  Beyond  those  points, 
however,  CuS04  is  stimulating,  in  the  first  crop,  to  the  produc- 
tion of  tops  only,  not  to  the  production  of  roots. 

Second  Crop 
The  very  large  decrease  in  yield  of  the  second  crop  in  the 
same  pots,  so  far  as  total  dry  matter  is  concerned,  is  clearly 
indicated  in  table  lib.  This  is  evidently  not  due  to  the  doubling 
of  the  percentage  of  CuS04  in  pots  receiving  treatment,  since 
the  decrease  in  the  second  as  compared  with  the  first  crop  is 
just  as  clearly  marked  in  the  control  pots.  On  the  other  hand, 
whereas  the  first  crop  produced  practically  no  grain,  probably 
for  reasons  above  discussed,  the  second  crop  produced  a  large 
yield  of  grain,  amounting  not  infrequently  to  25  per  cent  or 
considerably  more  of  the  total  dry  matter.  Again,  we  see  in 
the  figures  for  the  second  crop  the  disparity  between  yields  of 
duplicates,  but  again  also  the  consistently  large  yields  of  dry 


508        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

matter  in  the  treated  as  against  those  of  the  untreated  pots. 
This  is  strikingly  so  for  both  the  straw  and  the  grain  yield,  but 
is  most  consistently  and  undeniably  apparent  in  the  latter.  The 
root  yields  in  most  of  the  treated  pots  are  also  superior  to  those 
obtained  in  the  untreated  pots,  and  duplicate  cultures  show 
better  agreement  in  that  respect  than  do  the  straw  and  the 
grain  yields.  The  grain  produced  was  in  all  cases  well  filled  and 
normal  in  appearance.  In  brief,  we  find  that  the  second  crop 
on  the  soil  treated  with  CuS04,  despite  the  doubling  of  the 
CuS04  application,  shows  as  markedly,  and  perhaps  even  more 
markedly,  the  stimulating  effect  of  the  salt  under  consideration 
to  barley  grown  on  greenhouse  soil.  While  in  detail  the  results 
of  the  second  crop  differ  from  those  of  the  first  crop,  they  appear 
to  confirm  the  latter  in  general.  The  average  yields  of  dry 
matter  are  greater  with  all  treatments  than  they  arc  in  the 
untreated  pots.  This  strikingly  stimulating  effect  of  CuS04  on 
barley  under  the  conditions  named  in  concentrations  reaching 
a  maximum  of  0.3  per  cent  CuS04,  based  on  the  dry  weight  of 
the  soil,  is  as  astounding  as  it  is  interesting,  and  it  would  appear 
to  lend  little  support  to  the  idea  of  the  toxicity  of  CuS04  in 
relatively  small  amounts  to  crops  grown  on  field  soils.  This 
phase  of  the  subject  will,  however,  receive  more  attention  below. 

Third  Crop 
Grown  under  more  propitious  weather  conditions,  as  ex- 
plained above,  the  third  crop  in  the  CuS04  series  on  the  green- 
house soil  yielded  throughout  ninch  larger  amounts  of  dry 
matter  than  the  second  crop,  though  not  snch  large  amounts  as 
the  first  crop.  Again,  we  note  the  general  stimulating  effect  of 
CuSO,  to  the  production  of  dry  matter  in  barley  plants.  This 
time,  it  should  he  observed,  the  stimulating  effect  was  not  mani- 
fest throughout  the  treated  portion  of  the  series,  as  it  was  in 
the  first  two  crops.  Thus  four  of  the  CuSO,  concentrations 
employed,  namely,  600  p.  p.  m.,  1600  p.  p.  m.,  2400  p.  p.  m.,  and 
2600  p.  p.  in.,  depressed  the  yield  of  barley  if  average  yields  of 
duplicate  pots  are  considered.  In  most  cases,  however,  such 
depression  of  yield  is  easily  within  the  experimental  error  and 
therefore   may   be   without   significance.      This    is   especially   so 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  509 

since  there  is  no  regularity  in  the  inhibiting-  power  of  CuS04 
referred  to ;  but  small  as  well  as  large  concentrations  at  isolated 
points  in  the  series  depressed  the  yields  as  above  pointed  out, 
whereas  the  rest  of  the  concentrations,  also  small  and  large, 
stimulated  the  yields. 

While  the  total  dry  matter  produced  in  the  third  crop,  as 
shown  above,  is  greater  than  that  yielded  in  the  second  crop, 
the  yield  of  grain  in  the  latter  is  far  superior  to  that  in  the 
third  crop.  Thus  the  highest  grain  yield  in  the  third  crop  is 
scarcely  more  than  one-third  that  of  the  second  crop,  and  the 
lowest  yield  of  the  third  crop  is  about  one-sixth  that  of  the 
second  crop.  Nevertheless  these  facts  are  of  no  significance  in 
connection  with  the  effects  of  CuS04,  since  the  control  pots 
manifest  the  same  depression  in  grain  yields  which  is  character- 
istic of  the  treated  pots  in  the  third  crop.  Likewise,  in  most 
cases  the  treated  pots  produced  more  grain  than  the  untreated 
pots. 

The  point  of  maximum  stimulation  of  CuS04  to  the  produc- 
tion of  dry  matter  by  the  barley  plant  on  the  greenhouse  soil  is 
very  difficult  to  discern.  While  apparently  it  occurs  at  the 
concentration  of  from  0.18'  per  cent  to  0.2  per  cent  CuS04  of 
the  dry  weight  of  the  soil,  the  irregularity  and  non-agreement 
of  many  of  the  duplicate  pots  render  decisions  in  such  matters 
unsafe,  if  not  valueless.  In  general,  however,  the  figures  in  table 
lie  leave  little  room  to  doubt  the  non-injurious  nature  and 
perhaps  the  stimulating  effect  of  CuS04,  at  considerable  con- 
centrations, for  barley  in  the  greenhouse  soil  under  the 
conditions  described. 

Copper  Sulfate — Adobe  Soil 
Tables  Ilia  and  b  give  the  results  obtained  with  CuS04 
treatment  in  the  case  of  the  adobe  soil  in  the  first  and  second 
crops  respectively.  It  will  be  noted  at  the  outset  that  the  yields 
on  the  adobe  soil  are  much  lighter  than  those  on  the  greenhouse 
soil.  The  reasons  for  this  circumstance  are  of  course  not  far 
to  seek,  in  the  light  of  the  origin  and  descriptions  of  the  soils 
used  in  these  experiments  which  are  given  above.  Only  two 
crops  were  grown  on  the  adobe  soil,  because  we  did  not  decide 


510        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

to  start  it  for  comparison  with  the  greenhouse  soil  until  one 
crop  had  been  obtained  with  the  latter. 

First  Crop 

We  find  in  the  case  of  the  adobe  soil  the  same  unfortunate 
disparity  among  the  yields  of  duplicate  pots  which  was  noted 
with  the  greenhouse  soil.  This  disparity  is  of  course  the  more 
noticeable  when  much  smaller  absolute  amounts  are  involved,  as 
in  the  present  case.  Despite  all  that,  however,  there  appears 
to  be  justification  for  the  conclusion,  based  on  the  data  in  table 
Ilia,  that  CuS04  does  exercise  a  stimulating  action  on  the 
growth  of  barley  in  adobe  soil.  Such  stimulation  is  not  apparent 
throughout  the  whole  series,  as  it  is  in  the  ease  of  the  green- 
house soil,  but  it  appears  to  exist  in  all  concentrations  of  CuS04 
employed  up  to  900  p.  p.  m.  Concentrations  in  excess  of  the 
latter  seem  to  depress,  definitely,  the  yield  on  the  adobe  soil. 
But  whether  or  not  we  admit  the  existence  of  a  stimulating  effect 
by  CuS04  on  the  barley,  based  on  the  figures  here  studied,  it 
can  scarcely  be  denied  that  CuS04  is  not  toxic  to  barley  in 
the  first  crop  grown  on  adobe  soil  until  nearly  0.1  per  cent 
CuS04  is  present  in  the  soil.  Amounts  of  CuSO,  slightly  less 
than  0.1  per  cent  stimulate  the  growth  of  the  barley  significantly. 
At  concentrations  of  0.15  per  cent  and  0.2  per  cent  CuS04  no 
growth  is  obtained  at  all,  showing  of  course  marked  toxicity. 

Some  interesting  facts  are  brought  to  light  in  table  lib/  with 
respect  to  the  relationships  among  straw,  grain,  and  root  yields 
which  obtain  between  treated  and  untreated  soils  and  among 
themselves  in  the  case  of  the  different  concent  rations  of  the 
latter.  In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  noted  thai  the  grain  yields 
form  an  even  larger  percentage  of  the  total  dry  matter  of  the 
first  crop  on  the  adobe  soil  than  they  do  in  the  second  crop  on 
the  greenhouse  soil.  In  some  cases,  indeed,  the  average  yield  of 
grain  in  duplicate  pots  exceeded  the  average  yield  of  straw.  In 
nearly  half  the  treatments,  the  grain  yields  were  larger  than 
those  of  the  control  pots  so  that  the  stimulating  effect  of  the 
CuS04  application,  if  allowed,  applies  to  the  grain  yields  as 
well  as  to  those  of  total  dry  matter.     The  root  yields  are  pro- 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  511 

portionately  smaller  on  the  adobe  than  on  the  greenhouse  soil, 
as  are  the  yields  of  the  barley  as  to  tops.  Nevertheless,  the  aver- 
age yields  of  roots  also  show  the  stimulating  effects  of  CuS04, 
since  they  are  greater  in  all  concentrations  than  those  of  the 
control  pots  until  a  concentration  of  1000  p.  p.  m.  CuS04,  or 
0.1  per  cent  based  on  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil,  is  reached.  In 
excess  of  that  concentration,  CuS04  is  toxic  to  roots  and  appears 
to  inhibit  their  development. 

Second  Crop 
Much  better  agreement  among  the  yields  of  straw  in  dupli- 
cate pots  of  the  second  crop  on  the  adobe  soil  was  obtained 
than  in  any  of  the  series  with  CuS04  above  described.  In  fact, 
the  agreement  between  the  duplicates  in  nearly  all  cases  was 
as  good  as  could  possibly  be  hoped  for  when  one  allows  for 
the  ever-present  idiosyncrasies  of  plant  protoplasm.  Up  to 
and  including  concentrations  of  400  p.  p.  m.,  CuS04  seemed  to 
depress  barley  growth  except  in  one  concentration,  namely, 
at  300  p.  p.  m.  Such  depression  is  probably  not  significant, 
except  at  the  concentration  of  100  p.  p.  m.  However  that  may 
be,  CuS04  did  not  stimulate  the  development  of  barley  at  the 
lower  concentrations  in  the  second  crop  on  the  adobe  soil  as 
it  did,  with  one  exception,  in  the  first  crop.  On  the  contrary, 
conditions  reversed  themselves  in  the  second  crop,  and  the  most 
marked  and  consistent  stimulation  occurred  in  the  higher  con- 
centrations of  CuS04,  only  the  very  highest  concentration — 
namely,  2000  p.  p.  m. — showing  a  more  or  less  definitely  toxic 
effect.  Thus,  while  no  growth  was  obtained  in  the  first  crop  on 
the  adobe  soil  containing  1500  p.  p.  m.  of  CuS04,  the  same  soil 
on  the  second  planting  stimulated  the  growth  of  barley  so  that 
in  both  pots,  taken  separately  and  by  averages,  the  yield  was 
superior  to  that  of  the  control  pots.  Irregularities  of  course 
crept  into  this  series  as  into  the  others,  for  instance,  depressed 
growth  or  no  stimulation  at  a  concentration  of  1200  p.  p.  m., 
when  stimulated  growth  is  obtained  at  100  p.  p.  m.  CuS04  on 
the  one  hand  and  at  1500  p.  p.  m.  on  the  other,  is  a  circumstance 
which  is  very  difficult  of  explanation. 


ol2        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

Again,  unlike  the  first  crop  on  the  adobe  soil,  the  second  crop 
yielded  no  grain.  This  of  course  cannot  be  attributed  in  any 
way  to  the  effects  of  CuS04,  since  the  control  pots  behaved 
in  the  respect  noted  like  the  treated  ones.  Presumably,  unfavor- 
able climatic  conditions  and  the  heavy  nature  of  the  soil  may 
have  produced  and  influenced  the  result  obtained.  The  root 
yields,  however,  were  very  considerably  larger  in  the  second 
than  in  the  first  crop,  and  fairly  good  agreement  between  dupli- 
cate determinations  was  obtained.  Considering  the  small  total 
yield  of  dry  matter  in  roots,  it  is  perhaps  a  very  significant 
stimulation  to  their  development  which  CuS04  exerts. 

Regarded  then  from  the  standpoint  of  the  total  dry  matter 
produced,  there  appears  to  be  no  question  from  the  data  in 
table  III5  that  CuS04  can  stimulate  growth  in  the  barley  plant 
on  a  clay  adobe  soil  even  when  present  at  very  considerable 
concentrations.  If  only  the  dry  matter  of  the  above-ground 
parts  is  considered,  three  exceptions  to  this  rule  in  the  whole 
series  can  be  found.  In  a  general  way,  the  results  with  CuS04 
on  the  adobe  soil  confirm  those  obtained  on  the  greenhouse  soil 
using  the  same  salt.  It  may  be  repeated  with  advantage  here 
that  even  if  such  stimulating  properties  of  CuS04,  which  in  our 
opinion  we  have  shown  above  to  exist,  arc  not  allowed,  our  data 
do  not  offer  any  support  to  the  idea  that  in  the  ordinary  quan- 
tities in  which  copper  may  be  introduced  in  agricultural  soils  it 
is  even  likely  to  be  toxic  to  grain  plants. 

Copper  Sulfate — Oakley  Soil 
Only  one  crop  of  barley  was  grown  on  the  Oakley  soil  in 
the  tests  with  CuS04.  Since  closing  the  experiment  we  have 
regretted  the  fact  that  the  Oakley  soil  was  not  cropped  succes- 
sively for  two  or  three  seasons  after  treatment,  but  at  the  time 
of  the  experiment  this  was  not  deemed  necessary.  Table  IV 
gives  the  results  obtained  with  the  one  crop  in  question.  The 
figures  really  do  not  tell  the  whole  story,  since  the  appearance 
of  the  barley  plants  was  far  superior  on  the  treated  soils  on 
which  they  developed  at  all  than  it  was  on  the  untreated  soil. 
Nevertheless,  the  figures  are  striking  enough  to  be  used  alone 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  513 

as  a  criterion  to  determine  the  effects  of  CuS04  on  the  growth 
of  barley  in  the  Oakley  sand.  Onr  data  show  very  clearly  the 
stimulating  effect  of  CuS04  for  barley  in  the  first  crop  on  the 
Oakley  sand.  They  also  show,  more  clearly  than  any  series 
above  described,  the  toxic  effect  exercised  by  CuS04  at  the  higher 
concentrations.  The  stimulating  effects  further  do  not  occur  at 
such  high  concentrations  of  CuS04  in  the  case  of  the  Oakley 
sand  as  in  that  of  the  greenhouse  soil  or  even  in  that  of  the 
adobe  soil.  To  be  specific,  we  find  that  at  concentrations  of  100, 
200,  and  300  p.  p.  m.,  CuS04  is  definitely  stimulating  to  barley 
production  on  the  Oakley  soil  under  the  conditions  of  our  ex- 
periment. The  most  marked  results  of  the  stimulation  in  ques- 
tion are  not  manifest  in  the  production  of  straw  or  even  in  that 
of  roots  when  it  is  at  all  perceptible,  but  is  very  marked  in  nearly 
all  cases  so  far  as  grain  production  is  concerned.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  at  a  concentration  of  600  p.  p.  m.  CuSO+  in  the  Oakley 
soil,  we  obtain  the  largest  grain  production  of  the  whole  series, 
and  yet  the  straw  production  is  depressed  through  the  CuS04 
treatment  at  that  concentration  and  the  root  development  almost 
entirely  inhibited.  This  fact  is  very  difficult  to  explain,  but 
exhibits  parallelism  to  similar  facts  observed  by  both  Pammel 
and  Van  Slyke  in  the  experiments  above  cited.  When  the  dry 
matter  produced  is  considered  as  a  whole,  and  straw,  grain,  and 
roots  are  considered  together,  stimulation  is  noted  only  in  the 
case  of  the  first  two  concentrations  of  CuS04  employed,  and  the 
stimulation  is  not  very  marked.  In  other  words,  one  is  obliged 
to  state  definitely  the  criterion  employed  when  forming  a  judg- 
ment as  to  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  a  stimulating  effect 
of  CuS04  on  barley  grown  on  the  Oakley  sand.  It  will  be 
necessary  in  the  future,  for  a  more  decided  judgment  of  the 
question  in  hand,  to  grow  several  successive  crops  of  barley  on 
the  soil  named,  once  treated  with  CuS04,  as  shown  in  the  table, 
and  possibly  also  to  supply  available  nitrogen,  which  is  a  serious 
limiting  factor  in  the  growth  of  barley  on  that  soil.  Without 
making  any  final  statements  in  the  premises,  however,  the  data 
given  by  us  in  table  IV  seem  to  point  strongly  to  the  existence 
of  a  stimulating  action  of  CuS04  to  barley  growth,  even  on  the 
Oakley  sand. 


514        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

Zinc  Sulfate — Greenhouse  Soil 
Only  the  greenhouse  soil  was  employed  to  test  the  effect  of 
ZnS04  on  barley  plants.  As  was  the  case  with  CuS04  on  the 
same  soil,  three  successive  crops  were  grown,  two  treatments  of 
ZnS04  being  given.  The  results  obtained,  together  with  the 
treatments  given,  are  indicated  in  tables  Ya,  Yb,  and  Yc. 

First  Ceop 
A  study  of  table  Ya  reveals  the  fact  that  ZnS04  in  the  case 
of  the  first  crop  of  barley  is  not  unlike  CuS04  in  its  action.  In 
other  words,  while  the  latter  salt  exercises  a  greater  and  more 
definite  stimulating  action  in  the  first  crop,  ZnS04  also  manifests 
a  definite  though  smaller  stimulating  effect  on  the  barley  plants. 
This  seems  to  be  supported  by  the  fact  that  only  eight  pots  out 
of  thirty  treated  with  varying  amounts  of  ZnS04  give  a  smaller 
yield  than  the  highest  yield  of  the  control  pots.  In  general,  the 
stimulation  seems  to  be  greatest  at  concentrations  of  ZnS04 
varying  from  500  p.  p.  m.  to  1200  p.  p.  m.  inclusive.  This  state- 
ment has  reference  only  to  the  total  yield  of  dry  matter  and 
not  to  any  parts,  like  roots  or  tops,  taken  separately.  On 
the  same  bases,  also,  no  definitely  toxic  effect  of  ZnS04  was 
observed,  though,  as  above  intimated,  some  apparent  effects  of 
that  nature  were  noted.  Again,  in  accord  with  the  results 
obtained  with  CuS04  no  grain  worth  weighing  was  produced  in 
the  first  crop,  and  the  weights  of  the  straw  given  in  the  table 
therefore  include  such  partially  formed  heads  as  were  developed. 
In  still  further  agreement  with  the  results  of  the  first  crop  of 
the  CuS04  series,  ZnS04  stimulated  the  growth  and  develop- 
ment of  roots  practically  throughout  the  whole  series.  The 
stimulation  to  root  development  alone  was,  however,  greater 
in  the  ZnS04  series  than  in  the  CuSO,  series,  just  as  the  opposite 
was  true  for  the  tops.  The  greatest  stimulation  to  root  develop- 
ment appears  to  have  been  attained  at  the  higher  rather  than 
at  the  lower  concentrations  of  ZnS04,  the  difference  being  most 
marked  in  that  respect  between  the  first  three  concentrations 
employed  and  the  rest.  This  circumstance,  as  will  be  seen  by 
a  comparison  of  table  Ya  with  table  Ha,  is  the  reverse  of  that 
noted  in  the  first  crop  of  the  CuS04  series,  in  which  the  first  four 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  515 

concentrations  gave  the  largest  increases  of  dry  matter  of  roots 
over  the  controls.  All  in  all,  the  effect  of  ZnS04  in  the  case  of 
the  first  crop  on  the  greenhouse  soil  must  be  regarded  as  one 
definitely  stimulating  to  the  production  of  dry  matter  in  the 
barley  plant. 

Second  Crop 
While  in  the  first  crop  the  CuS04  and  ZnS04  series  are  in 
general  similar  so  far  as  the  effects  of  the  salts  on  the  barley 
plants  are  concerned,  they  differ  markedly  in  the  second  crop. 
To  illustrate,  it  may  first  be  noted  in  table  Yb  herewith,  on  the 
basis  of  the  total  dry  matter  produced,  that  ZnS04  beyond  con- 
centrations of  600  p.  p.  m.  is  distinctly  toxic  to  barley  in  the 
greenhouse  soil.  With  similar  concentrations  of  CuS04  in  the 
second  crop,  the  latter  salt  was  not  only  not  toxic  beyond  600 
p.  p.  m.,  but  was  aetiially  more  stimulating  at  most  of  the  higher 
than  at  the  lower  concentrations.  It  would  therefore  seem  that 
so  far  as  the  yields  of  the  total  dry  matter  are  concerned,  ZuS04 
is  either  more  toxic  than  CuS04  or  the  latter  is  more  readily 
adsorbed  by  the  greenhouse  soil  and  thus  removed  from  the 
active  solution  which  bathes  the  feeding  roots.  It  must,  never- 
theless, be  added  that  while  ZnS04  appears  to  be  definitely  more 
toxic  to  barley  than  CuS04  in  the  greenhouse  soil,  it  cannot  be 
considered  very  toxic  since  0.06  per  cent  ZnS04  of  the  dry  weight 
of  the  soil  is  not  only  not  toxic,  but  actually  stimulating.  We 
may  now  consider  for  a  moment  the  different  components  of  the 
total  dry  matter  produced  in  the  second  crop  of  the  ZnS04  series. 
So  far  as  the  straw  alone  is  concerned,  only  a  concentration  of 
200  p.  p.  m.  ZnS04  gave  stimulating  effects.  That  concentration 
produced  a  very  marked  stimulation,  and  good  agreement  is 
evident  in  the  duplicate  pots.  Concentrations  in  excess  of  200 
p.  p.  m.  depress  straw  production.  Such  depression,  however, 
is  in  some  instances  not  very  great,  and  considerable  disagree- 
ment between  duplicates  here,  as  in  the  copper  series,  renders 
it  difficult  to  pass  final  judgment  in  the  matter.  In  general, 
there  is  little  difference  in  the  depressing  effects  on  straw  pro- 
duction of  concentrations  of  ZnS04  varying  between  600  p.  p.  m. 
and  3000  p.  p.  m.    Beyond  3000  p.  p.  m.  a  more  definite  depress- 


516       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

ing  effect  on  the  production  of  straw  in  the  second  crop  becomes 
apparent.  The  fact  that  the  wide  range  of  concentrations  just 
referred  to  is  productive  of  similar  effects  seems  to  indicate 
that  most  of  ZnS04  is  adsorbed  by  the  soil  and  but  little  of 
it  is  free  to  affect  the  plant  in  the  soil  solution. 

With  the  exception  of  one  or  two  doubtful  cases,  grain 
production  is  somewhat  depressed  throughout  the  second  crop 
of  the  ZnS04  series.  This  appears  to  be  even  more  true  for  the 
first  concentration  of  ZnS04,  which  stimulates  straw  production, 
than  for  the  higher  concentrations,  which  depress  straw  pro- 
duction. All  of  these  judgments,  however,  are  based  on  averages 
of  duplicate  pots  which  do  not  agree  very  well,  and  hence  con- 
siderable caution  is  employed  in  stating  them.  Again,  the  effect 
of  ZnS04  on  grain  production  seems  to  be  about  the  same 
whether  small  or  large  quantities  of  the  salt  are  employed. 

So  far  as  root  production  is  concerned,  however,  the  data 
of  the  second  crop  in  the  ZnS04  series  are  very  different  from 
those  bearing  on  the  yields  of  grain  and  straw.  With  three 
exceptions,  two  of  them  at  the  highest  concentrations  of  ZnS04 
employed,  the  latter  induced  the  production  in  all  pots  of  more 
roots  than  were  produced  in  the  control  pots.  While  in  many 
eases  the  stimulation  in  the  direction  noted  was  not  great,  it 
was  definite,  and  in  many  other  cases  it  was  very  considerable. 
Moreover,  there  was  good  agreement  between  the  duplicate  de- 
terminations. The  greatest  stimulation  to  root  production 
occurred  between  200  and  2600  p.  p.  m.  ZnS04.  While,  there- 
fore, the  second  crop  of  the  ZnS04  series  differed  from  that  of 
the  CuS04  series  with  respect  to  grain  production,  there  was 
great  similarity  in  action  between  the  two  as  regards  root  yields. 

Third  Crop 
In  the  third  crop  of  the  ZnS04  series,  the  toxicity  of  ZnS04 
appears  to  have  become  augmented  even  over  that  of  the  second 
crop.  There  seems  to  be  no  case  of  stimulation  even  in  the 
lowest  concentration  (200  p.  p.m.).  This  applies  to  straw, 
grain,  and  roots  equally  well.  On  the  other  hand,  the  toxicity 
of  ZnS04  for  root  and  grain  production  by  barley  in  the  third 
crop  is  certainly  not  very  marked,  although  uniform.    For  straw 


1917]  Lipman-Gerickc :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  517 

production,  ZnS04  becomes  suddenly  very  much  more  toxic 
than  at  the  lower  concentrations  when  more  than  2400  p.  p.  m. 
is  employed  in  the  culture  medium  here  used.  At  200  p.  p.  m. 
neither  the  straw  and  grain  on  the  one  hand,  nor  the  roots  on 
the  other,  are  seriously  affected  in  one  direction  or  another  by 
the  ZnS04  in  the  third  crop.  Beyond  these  remarks  no  dis- 
cussion of  table  Vc  is  necessary.  The  figures  given  in  that 
table  speak  plainly  enough  for  themselves.  In  contrast  with 
the  CuS04  series  of  the  third  crop,  however,  table  Vc  shows 
ZnS04  to  be  again  totally  different  in  its  effect  on  the  barley 
plant  in  the  greenhouse  soil.  Thus  the  CuS04  exercises  a  stimu- 
lating effect  on  total  dry-matter  production  in  the  third  crop  at 
almost  all  concentrations,  while  ZnS04,  far  from  doing  so  in 
any  case,  is  actually  toxic  in  all  concentrations  in  the  third  crop 
on  the  same  soil.  This  points  clearly  to  sharp  differences  in 
the  specific  physiological  effects  of  the  copper  and  zinc  ions, 
since  they  were  the  only  apparent  variables  in  question  in  this 
experiment. 


Ferrous  Sulfate — Greenhouse  Soil 

Owing  to  the  rapidity  with  which  ferrous  salts  are  rendered 
insoluble  in  well-aerated  soils,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  depart 
from  the  procedure  followed  in  the  other  series  so  far  as  quan- 
tity of  FeS04  used  is  concerned.  Applications  of  the  salt  were 
therefore  made  at  intervals  of  0.1  per  cent  between  two  suc- 
ceeding cultures  in  the  series,  the  lowest  concentration  used  in 
the  first  crop  being  0.1  per  cent,  and  the  highest  1  per  cent.  As 
in  the  other  series  above  described  on  the  greenhouse  soil  (the 
only  one  used  in  the  FeS04  series),  the  amounts  of  salts  were 
doubled  prior  to  planting  the  second  crop.  The  results  of  the 
yields  are  given  in  tables  Via,  Ylb,  and  Vic. 

First  Crop 

Even  though  the  amounts  of  FeS04  used  were  very  large, 

we  see  clearly  from  table  Via  that  the  salt  stimulated,  in  the 

first  crop,  the  production  of  dry  matter  in  barley.     Considering 

averages  of  duplicate  pots,  we  find  that  there  is  no  concentration 


518        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

of  FeS04  which  did  not  yield  increased  growth  of  barley.  This 
constitutes  the  most  striking  set  of  stimulations  noted  in  the 
series  thus  far  discussed.  Moreover,  we  find  again  an  evident 
lack  of  relationship  between  the  amount  of  FeS04  employed 
and  the  degree  of  stimulation  induced  thereby.  In  agreement 
with  the  results  obtained  in  the  CuS04  and  ZnS04  series,  the 
FeS04  series  yielded  no  grain  worthy  the  name  in  the  first  crop. 
Again  in  agreement  with  the  results  of  the  other  series,  consider- 
able discrepancy  was  found  in  duplicate  pots  so  far  as  yields  are 
concerned.  In  the  case  of  the  root  yields,  we  have  also  large 
discrepancies  between  duplicate  pots.  However  this  may  be, 
the  straw  yields  in  the  treated  pots  of  the  first  crop  surpass 
those  of  the  untreated  pots  in  almost  all  cases,  even  if  the  higher 
figure  for  straw  yields  of  the  control  pots  be  employed  as  a  cri- 
terion. This  is  not  so  for  the  yields  of  roots ;  and  while  aver- 
age yields  show  definite  stimulation  by  FeS04  for  root  produc- 
tion of  barley  plants  on  the  greenhouse  soil,  single  values  from 
duplicate  pots  do  not  justify  any  conclusions  of  that  nature. 
Despite  all  this,  there  is  certainly  no  reliable  evidence  of  definite 
toxic  effects  on  the  part  of  FeS04  to  barley  plants  under  the 
conditions  of  this  experiment.  In  general,  therefore,  the  results 
of  the  FeS04  series  are  not  unlike  those  of  the  CuS04  series, 
and  the  ZnS04  series  on  the  greenhouse  soil  so  far,  at  least,  as 
the  first  crop  is  concerned. 

Second  Crop 
It  will  be  remembered  again  that  the  amounts  of  FeS04 
employed  for  the  first  crop  were  doubled  before  planting  the 
second  crop.  On  studying  the  yields  of  the  latter,  one  is  at 
once  struck  by  the  strong  parallelism  in  effect  exerted  on  the 
barley  plants  by  ZnS04  and  FeS04  in  the  second  crop.  Both 
stimulate  total  dry-matter  production  in  the  very  low  concen- 
trations and  yet  the  discrepancies  between  the  actual  amounts 
of  salts  used  in  the  two  cases  are  of  course  very  large.  Besides, 
both  seem  to  stimulate  root  development  and,  very  slightly,  the 
production  of  straw,  at  certain  concentrations.  Again,  there 
appears  to  be  indirect  evidence  that  most  of  the  salt  applied  is 
not  only  rendered  insoluble,  as  is  probably  the  case  with  FeS04, 


1917]  Lipman-Gericlce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  519 

but  that  much  of  the  salt  remaining  is  adsorbed  by  the  soil  and 
becomes  inactive  so  far  as  the  barley  roots  are  concerned. 

Third  Crop 
In  table  Vic,  which  sets  forth  the  yields  of  dry  matter 
obtained  in  the  third  crop  of  the  FeS04  series,  we  find  some 
data  of  unusual  interest.  Despite  discrepancies  in  the  weights 
of  dry  matter  obtained  in  duplicate  pots,  there  can  be  little 
question  that  the  higher  concentrations  of  FeS04,  beginning 
with  1.4  per  cent,  definitely  stimulate  straw  production,  while 
the  lower  concentrations  employed,  less  definitely  but  probably 
without  doubt,  depress  it.  Grain  production,  on  the  other  hand, 
seems  to  have  been  stimulated  in  the  third  crop  by  all  concentra- 
tions of  FeS04  employed,  and  the  yields  are  high  enough  and 
agree  well  enough  in  the  duplicates  to  justify  that  conclusion. 
In  the  case  of  the  roots,  still  another  effect  was  probably  induced 
by  FeS04.  No  stimulation  can  be  definitely  noted,  yet  the 
toxic  effect,  if  any,  is  small  and  apparent  in  very  few  instances. 
In  the  case  of  the  total  dry  matter  produced,  marked  stimulation 
seems  to  have  been  obtained  at  concentrations  of  FeS04  respec- 
tively of  1.4  per  cent,  1.6  per  cent,  and  2  per  cent.  When  com- 
pared with  the  third  crop  of  the  CuS04  and  ZnS04  series,  the 
third  crop  of  the  FeS04  series  stands  out  sharply.  It  gives 
stimulation  only  at  the  higher  concentrations,  the  ZnS04  gives 
no  stimulation  and  almost  positive  toxicity  throughout,  and  the 
CuS04  gives  stimulation  almost  throughout  the  whole  series  in 
the  third  crop.  While  all  three  of  the  salts  may  be  quite  harm- 
less and  even  stimulating  in  relatively  small  quantities,  they 
manifest  very  definite  and  specific  characters  when  employed  in 
higher  concentrations  and  when  results  are  obtained  on  the  same 
soil  for  more  than  one  season. 


Lead  Sulfate — Greenhouse  Soil 

Entirely  unlike  the  three  salts  thus  far  discussed,  PbS04 
exercises  what  appears  to  us  to  be  a  definitely  toxic  effect 
throughout  the  first  crop.  This  observation  must  be  considered 
separately  for  every  crop.     It  should  be  noted  that  unlike  the 


.320        t'mn  rsity  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

copper,  zinc,  and  iron  salts.  PbSO,  was  applied  unci'  only  prior 
to  planting  the  first  crop. 

First  Crop 
Like  ZnS04  and  PeS04)  the  PbSO,  was  tested  in  the  green- 
house soil   only.      The   yields   obtained    in    the    PbS04   scries   are 
given  in  table  Vila,  VII6,  and  VIIc.     They  will  be  discussed 

in  conjunction  with  the  comment  already  made  with  reference 
to  the  aspect  of  the  plants  in  the  1*1>S<  I,  series.  It  will  he  noted 
there  that  the  plants  possessed  little  rigidity,  were  deep  green 
in  color,  and  in  general  assumed  a  sprawling  or  prostrate,  in- 
stead of  an  erect,  habit  of  growth.  This  was  a  result  of  some 
specific  reaction  of  PbSO,  and  was  exerted  even  though  only 
small  quantities  of  the  sail  could  have  existed  in  the  soil  solu- 
tion, owing  to  tic  insolubility  of  the  salt.  It  should  also  1"' 
observed  in  this  scries,  as  it  has  been  in  the  others,  thai  the 
quantity  of  Phsn,  employed  seemed  to  have  Little  relation  to  its 
toxic  effects  on  the  yields  of  straw.  The  lack  of  "fain  produc- 
tion  has  already   1 n  explained   in  other  discussions  above  ami 

is  connected  not  with  an\  sail  treatment,  bul  with  the  condition 
of  the  greenhouse  soil  itself,  of  which  more  detailed  discussion 

has  been   given. 

Root  production  was  particularly  affected  in  a  deleterious 
manner  by  PbSO,  in  the  firsl  crop.  Roughly  speaking,  it  was 
reduced  in  tic  PbSO,  treated  pots  by  more  than  60  per  cent 
of  the  yield  obtained  on  the  untreated  or  control  pots.  In  other 
words,  in  this  series,  as  in  many  others,  rool  production  and 
straw  production  run  almost  parallel.  This  is  further  evidenced 
by  the  uniformly  depressing  effeel  of  PbSO,  regardless  of  the 
quantity  in  which  it  was  employed.     We  find  therefore  iii   PbSO, 

(and  in  Pb,  I ause  all  the  sulfates  used  have  a  common  anion1 

a  substance  which  in  the  firsl  crop  on  the  greenhouse  soil  exhibits 
characteristics  totally  different  from  those  of  copper,  /inc.  and 
iron  under  similar  circumstances.  Tims  while  the  three  salts 
last  named  show  definite  powers  of  stimulating  barley  growth 
in  the  first  crop  on  the  greenhouse  soil,  lead  \ity  markedly 
depresses  the   growth   of  that    plant   under  the   same  i ditions. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  521 

Second  Crop 

In  the  second  crop  quite  different  conditions  obtain  with 
respect  to  the  effects  of  PbS04.  While  nearly  all  of  the  higher 
concentrations  of  the  series  are  still  toxic  to  barley,  three  of  the 
lower  concentrations,  including  600  p.  p.  m.,  are  distinctly  stim- 
ulating to  that  plant.  If  it  were  not  for  injury  to  the  plants 
by  mice,  the  concentrations  of  200  p.  p.  m.  and  400  p.  p.  m. 
PbS04  would  doubtless  have  shown  as  much  stimulation  as  the 
others  just  mentioned.  In  other  words,  taking  the  total  dry 
matter  produced,  it  seems  true  beyond  cavil  that  in  the  second 
crop  on  the  greenhouse  soil,  PbS04  in  very  considerable  con- 
centrations acts  as  a  stimulant  to  barley  growth. 

With  reference  to  the  separate  fractions  of  the  total  dry 
matter  produced  in  the  second  crop  of  the  PbS04  series,  we  note 
some  interesting  facts.  In  the  first  place,  no  grain  was  pro- 
duced in  the  second  crop  of  the  lead  series.  This  is  very  difficult 
to  explain,  since  the  control  pots  and  the  treated  ones  behaved 
similarly  in  that  regard.  In  view  of  our  statements  in  the  intro- 
ductory portion  of  this  paper,  we  can  scarcely  believe  that  the 
mere  location  of  the  plants  of  this  series  in  a  somewhat  shaded 
part  of  the  greenhouse  can  account  for  the  discrepancy.  The 
root  yields  were  nearly  all  depressed  by  the  action  of  PbS04  in 
the  second  crop.  The  exceptions  to  this  rule  were  in  isolated 
pots  with  no  duplicates  to  confirm  them.  It  would  therefore 
seem  that  PbS04  is  toxic  to  the  root  development  of  the  barley 
plant  even  in  the  second  crop,  in  spite  of  its  stimulating  effect 
on  the  straw  yield  at  certain  concentrations.  Such  effect  of 
PbS04  is  unlike  that  of  any  of  the  other  salts,  which,  at  least 
at  a  number  of  concentrations,  stimulate  root  development,  par- 
ticularly so  in  the  case  of  CuS04  and  ZnS04. 

Third  Crop 
A  progressive  improvement  may  be  seen  in  the  soil  treated 
with  PbS04  as  crop  follows  crop.  Just  as  the  second  crop 
gave  very  much  better  results  than  the  first,  so  the  third  crop 
gave  very  much  better  results  than  the  second.  In  the  third 
crop  the  stimulation  to  the  growth  of  barley  exerted  by  PbS04 
is,  however,  the  most  striking,  since  it  obtains  particularly  at 


522        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

the  higher  concentrations  of  PbS04.  As  was  the  case  with  some 
of  the  other  salts  in  other  crops,  PbS04  seems  to  be  toxic  in 
the  third  crop  at  the  low  concentrations  at  which  it  stimulated 
growth  in  the  second  crop.  On  the  other  hand,  it  stimulates 
growth  as  above  stated  in  the  third  crop  at  some  of  the  higher 
concentrations  at  which  it  was  toxic  in  the  second  crop. 

However,  most  of  the  stimulating  influence  of  PbS04,  and 
perhaps  all  of  it,  in  the  third  crop  affected  the  straw  production 
and  not  the  root  yields.  This  is  again  at  variance  with  the 
results  obtained  in  many  of  the  other  series  above  described,  in 
which  the  usual  condition  was  a  parallelism  between  the  effects 
exerted  by  a  salt  on  the  different  fractions  of  the  total  dry-mat- 
ter yields.  Thus  very  good  straw  yields  were  obtained  in  most 
of  the  pots  of  the  series  in  the  third  crop  and  instances  of  in- 
creases over  those  of  the  control  pots  were  numerous,  but  no 
definite  evidence  of  such  stimulation  in  the  case  of  the  roots 
could  be  noted.  In  the  case  of  the  grain,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
higher  concentrations  of  PbS04  seemed  to  be  as  definitely  stim- 
ulating as  they  did  in  the  case  of  the  straw  yields.  This  is 
in  almost  entire  harmony  with  PeS04  in  the  third  crop,  but 
has  little  resemblance  to  the  corresponding  CuS04  and  ZnS04 
series. 


Potash  Alum — Greenhouse  Soil 
This  salt  was  tested  in  these  experiments  because  it  had  been 
proposed  that  if  it  was  not  detrimental  to  soils  and  crops,  it 
could  be  employed  as  a  source  of  potash  for  fertilizers.  It  could 
be  cheaply  obtained  in  all  probability  by  treating  granitic  rock 
containing  adequate  percentages  of  potash,  with  H2S04,  which 
can  be  manufactured  in  large  quantity  by  the  important  smelter 
plants  through  the  oxidation  of  S02  fumes.  In  view  of  the 
foregoing,  potash  alum  was  applied,  as  indicated  in  tables 
Villa,  VIII6,  and  VIIIc,  which  are  given  below,  on  the  basis  of 
a  certain  number  of  pounds  per  acre,  beginning  with  300  pounds 
K20  per  acre  in  the  form  of  KA1(S04)2.12H20  and  going  up 
to  2000  pounds  K20  per  acre  in  the  same  form. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericlce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  523 

First  Crop 
Table  Villa  shows  clearly  that  the  application  of  potash 
alum  in  the  first  crop  was  distinctly  stimulating  to  the  barley 
plant  so  far  as  the  production  of  total  dry  matter  is  concerned. 
The  degree  of  stimulation  is  not  unlike  that  of  CuS04,  ZnS04, 
and  FeS04  in  the  first  crop  and,  again,  seems  to  be  about  the 
same  with  the  lower  as  with  the  higher  concentrations.  When 
we  consider  the  root  yields  separately  from  the  straw  yields 
we  find,  however,  that  the  former  were  not  increased  by  the 
potash  alum  treatment,  though  they  were  scarcely  depressed 
with  any  concentration  of  the  salt. 

Second  Crop 

With  the  concentration  of  potash  alum  doubled  in  the  second 
crop,  the  marked  evidences  of  its  stimulating  effect  on  barley 
growth  are  still  manifestly  present.  The  entire  series  of  treated 
pots,  when  averages  of  total  dry  matter  produced  are  taken  as 
the  criterion,  gives  results  far  superior  to  those  of  the  control 
pots,  even  though  there  is  variation  among  the  latter  and  among 
the  treated  pots  in  duplicate  cultures.  So  far  as  the  production 
of  the  total  dry  matter  of  barley  is  concerned,  there  appears  to 
be  no  evidence  in  the  second  crop  and  very  little,  if  any,  in  the 
first,  of  any  toxic  properties  of  potash  alum. 

We  may  now  consider  briefly  the  separate  parts  of  the  total 
dry  matter  as  affected  by  the  potash  alum.  The  yield  of  straw 
is  without  exception  greater  in  the  treated  than  in  the  untreated 
pots  of  the  second  crop  of  the  potash  alum  series.  That  part 
of  the  total  dry  matter  has  therefore  been  very  materially  in- 
creased by  the  potash  alum  application.  The  grain  yields  in  the 
absolute  were  of  very  great  magnitude  and  amounted  in  many 
cases  to  as  much  by  weight  as  the  dry  matter  of  the  straw.  In 
some  cases  they  even  excelled  the  latter.  This  is  analogous  to 
the  condition  of  the  second  barley  crop  in  the  CuS04  series, 
which  was  the  only  one  of  the  other  series  manifesting  as 
high  a  grain  production.  Not  only,  however,  were  the  grain 
yields  large  in  the  absolute,  but  they  indicated  clearly  the  stim- 
ulating effect  of  potash  alum  on  their  production,  since  all  the 
treated  pots  yielded  much   more   grain  than  the   control   pots. 


524       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

In  the  second  crop,  on  the  other  hand,  as  in  the  first,  the  Larger 
amounts  of  potash  alum  were  neither  inferior  nor  superior  to 
the  smaller  amounts  in  increased  production  of  straw  and  grain, 
but  were  of  about  the  same  influence  throughout.  Consistent 
with  the  effect  of  potash  alum  on  the  straw  and  grain  yields  was 
that  on  the  root  yields.  The  latter  were,  throughout  the  whole 
series  in  the  second  crop,  increased  by  the  potash  alum  applica- 
tions and,  as  in  the  cases  of  straw  and  grain,  independently 
of  the  amounts  of  potash  alum  employed.  We  have,  therefore, 
another  phase  of  analogy  between  the  potash  alum  and  the 
CuSO.,  series  in  the  second  crop  winch  seems  only  to  make  the 
resemblance  stand  out  in  greater  relief.  The  production  of 
every  part  of  the  plant  in  the  Second  crop  was  stimulated  by 
both  potash  alum  and  by  CuS04,  but  not  by  the  other  sulfates 
employed. 

Third  Crop 
Wholly    at    variance    with    the    effects    just    noted    are    those 
observed  in  the  third  crop  of  the  potash  alum  series.     So  far 
from  stimulating  the  growth  of  barley  in  all  respects,  as  it  did 

in  the  first  and  second  crops,  and  particularly  in  the  latter, 
potash  alum  in  any  and  all  concentrations  depresses  the  growth 
of  barley  when  the  yields  of  total  <\v\  matter  are  used  as  a  basis 
of  comparison.  This  is  true  also  for  the  straw  and  root  yields 
taken  separately,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  straw  yield 
with  the  lowest  concentration  of  potash  alum.  In  the  case  of 
the  grain  yields,  however,  no  indubitable  evidence  of  a  depress- 
ing  effect  by  the  potash  alum  is  at  hand.  It  is  indeed  not  im- 
possible that  definite  though  small  effects  of  potash  alum  stimu- 
lating to  grain  production  in  the  third  crop  might  be  allowed  in 
some  of  the  concentrations  of  the  salt  employed.  The  explana- 
tion of  this  striking'  change  in  the  effects  of  potash  alum  in  two 
successive  crops  is  obviously  not  simple,  though  several  possible 
explanations  immediately  suggest  themselves.  It  is  probable 
that  the  most  favorable  explanation  would  be  over-stimulation 
of  plant  growth  in  the  first  two  crops  and  the  removal  of  most 
of  the  easily  available  bases  in  the  soil,  leaving  an  impoverished 
soil  condition  and  perhaps  a  so-called  "physiological  acidity," 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  525 

which  would  of  course  react  deleteriously  on  the  development  of 
the  barley  plant.  Again,  the  washing  out  of  the  salt  by  irri- 
gation may  have  caused  physical  conditions  in  the  soil  which 
are  inimical  to  the  proper  air  and  water  supply  for  both  plants 
and  the  soil  bacteria.  The  first  conception  is  the  one  employed 
to  a  considerable  extent  by  the  "old-line  soil  chemist"  to  explain 
the  depressing  effects  on  soil  fertility  of  the  large  and  continued 
use  of  gypsum.  The  second  is  a  condition  demonstrated  in  this 
laboratory  recently7  to  be  of  considerable  importance.  Further 
discussion  will  be  accorded  this  subject  in  a  general  comparison 
given  below  of  our  results  with  those  of  others.  In  general  it 
may  be  added  that  the  results  of  the  third  crop  in  the  potash 
alum  series  are  more  in  keeping  with  those  of  the  ZnS04  series 
than  with  those  of  any  other  series  discussed. 


Manganese  Sulfate 

After  our  work  on  the  effects  of  the  compounds  mentioned 
on  barley  plants  had  been  under  way  for  one  season,  it  was 
deemed  advisable  to  inaugurate  some  new  experiments,  using 
manganese  salts.  The  latter  it  will  be  remembered  were  rep- 
resented by  MnS04  in  preliminary  experiments  by  F.  H.  Wilson 
and  the  senior  author,  which  are  cited  above.  Owing  to  the 
fact  that  the  preliminary  experiments  with  manganese  had 
shown  the  latter  to  be  comparatively  innocuous,  and  even  stim- 
ulating at  considerable  concentrations,  for  barley  and  vetch, 
larger  amounts  of  manganese  than  of  copper  and  zinc  were  em- 
ployed. Both  MnS04  and  MnCl,  were  tested.  Each  of  these 
salts  will  be  considered  separately,  and  tables  IXo,  IX&,  and 
IXc,  which  follow,  give  the  plan  and  the  results  of  the  experi- 
ments with  MnS04.  In  the  case  of  both  manganese  salts,  only 
one  application  was  made,  and  that  was  prior  to  the  first  crop. 

First  Crop 
It  becomes  at  once  clear  from  an  examination  of  table  IX« 
that  we  can  find  in  the  first  crop  no  indubitable  evidence  of 


Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Agri.  Sei.,  vol.  1,  no.  10,  p.  291. 


526        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

toxicity  for  barley  of  MnS04  even  when  amounts  of  that  salt 
equivalent  to  0.6  per  cent  of  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil  were 
used.  On  the  other  hand,  the  stimulating  effect  of  MnS04  for 
barley  in  the  first  crop  on  the  greenhouse  soil  appears  to  be 
clearly  evident.  This  is  particularly  true  for  the  first  three  con- 
centrations, amounting  respectively  to  500,  1000,  and  1500  p.  p. 
m.  At  concentrations  exceeding  1500  p.  p.  m.  MnSO.,,  the  stim- 
ulation is  only  slight,  and  three  concentrations — namely,  3500 
p.  p.  in.,  4000  p.  p.  in.,  and  5500  p.  p.  m.  MnS04 — possibly  de- 
press barley  growth  to  some  extent.  The  latter  effect  can  scarcely 
be  taken  as  indicating  definite  toxicity,  however,  since,  as  above 
pointed  out,  even  the  highest  concentration  employed  (6000 
p.  p.  m.  MnS04)  appeared  to  stimulate  barley  growth  slightly, 
and  the  toxic  evidences  referred  to  are  noted  at  concentrations 
which  lie  between  slightly  stimulating  concent  rat  ions  on  both 
sides.  At  any  rate,  we  have  no  evidence  of  the  toxicity  of 
MnS04  in  the  first  crop  until  concent  cat  ions  equivalent  to  3500 
p.  p.  m.  of  MnS04  are  reached. 

When  the  root  and  straw  yields  are  considered  separately  in 
the  first  crop,  some  interesting  observations  may  be  made  which 
are  not  possible  when  the  dry  matter  is  considered  as  a  whole. 
For  example,  stimulation  to  root  development  in  the  first  crop 
of  the  MnS04  series  is  apparent  only  in  the  first  three  concentra- 
tions above  noted  as  giving  the  largest  yields  of  dry  matter. 
Moreover,  the  straw  yields  are  also  distinctly  higher  at  those 
same  concentrations.  But  whereas  MnS04  gives  evidence  of 
toxicity  to  root  development,  either  slightly  or  definitely,  at  all 
concentrations  tried  above  1500  p.  p.  in.,  it  continues  beyond  that 
concentration  to  be  slightly  stimulating  to  straw  production. 

In  comparison  with  the  other  salts  above  described,  MnS04 
is  distinctly  superior  in  the  magnitude  of  its  stimulating  effects. 
The  only  other  salt  which  manifests  some  resemblance  to 
MnS04  in  that  respect  is  CuS04.  Since  the  concentrations 
of  these  two  salts  here  employed,  however,  are  very  different 
from  each  other  in  the  two  cases,  no  more  detailed  comparison 
would  be  wholly  justified. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  527 

Second  Crop 

When  the  total  dry  matter  of  the  second  crop  in  the  MnS04 
series  is  considered  (table  IX&),  we  find  that  not  only  has  the 
stimulation  noted  in  the  first  crop  disappeared,  but  that  an  act- 
ually definite  toxicity  has  supplanted  it.  Moreover,  such  toxicity 
is  as  marked  with  the  lowest  as  it  is  with  the  highest  concentra- 
tions of  MnS04,  and  it  is  even  possible  that  the  former  definitely 
surpass  the  latter  in  that  respect.  Again,  as  in  some  preceding 
cases  with  other  salts,  the  total  dry-matter  yields  do  not  give  a 
complete  picture  of  the  effects  of  MnS04  on  barley  growth.  Thus 
if  we  consider  the  straw,  grain,  and  root  yields  separately,  we 
find  data  leading  to  conclusions  slightly  different  from  those 
above.  For  example,  whereas  both  the  grain  and  root  produc- 
tion are  definitely  depressed  at  all  concentrations  of  MnS04  in 
the  second  crop,  this  is  not  so  for  the  straw  yields.  The  latter 
are  in  many  instances,  including  the  cultures  of  the  highest 
concentrations  of  MnS04,  increased  by  the  effects  of  the  salt. 
Were  it  not  for  the  lack  of  agreement  in  some  of  the  duplicates, 
we  might  add  more  emphatically  that  straw  yields  are  markedly 
stimulated  by  MnS04  in  the  second  as  in  the  first  crop  on  the 
greenhouse  soil.  This  seems  particularly  true  at  the  higher 
concentrations  of  the  latter  salt,  but  is  also  apparent  at  some 
lower  concentrations.  Since,  therefore,  no  grain  was  produced 
in  the  first  crop,  and  since  only  three  of  the  lowest  concentra- 
tions of  MnS04  in  it  gave  stimulation  to  root  development,  it 
seems  not  unreasonable  to  consider  that  the  results  of  the  second 
crop  in  the  MnS04  series  are,  in  the  large,  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  those  of  the  first  crop.  The  outstanding  result  is  the 
stimulation  to  straw  production  which  is  noted,  and  that  is  differ- 
ent in  degree  only,  not  in  kind,  in  the  two  crops  here  considered. 
Despite  all  this,  however,  we  do  not  attempt  to  disregard  the 
differences  which  characterize  the  effects  of  MnS04  in  the  first 
and  second  crops  as  above  pointed  out,  but  we  regard  them  as 
of  minor  significance. 

When  we  compare  MnS04  in  the  second  crop  with  other  salts 
under  similar  circumstances  in  the  greenhouse  soil,  we  find  that 
it  has  but  little  in  common  with  them.  It  approaches  perhaps 
most  closely  the  behavior  of  PbS04  in  the  second  crop,  but  is 


528        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

different  from  it  in  several  important  particulars.  As  a  general 
thing-,  the  other  salts  still  give  more  stimulating  effects  in  the 
second  crop  so  far  as  the  total  dry-matter  production  is  con- 
cerned, but  this  is  not  true  in  any  instance  of  the  second  crop 
of  the  MnS04  series.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that 
the  manganese  series  is  not  comparable  with  the  others  except 
possibly  with  the  lead  series,  because  only  one  treatment,  prior 
to  the  first  crop,  was  given. 

Third  Crop 
The  depressing  effect  exerted  by  MnS04  in  the  second  crop 
of  barley,  at  least  so  far  as  the  grain  and  straw  yields  are  con- 
cerned, appears  to  have  been  merely  an  ephemeral  one.  There 
was  not  only  a  total  disappearance  thereof  in  the  third  cro*p, 
but  an  actually  stimulating  effect  seems  to  have  replaced  it ;  and 
to  have  extended  to  straw,  grain,  and  root  production  and  was 
not  confined,  as  in  the  second  crop,  merely  to  straw  production 
in  part  of  the  series.  Moreover,  the  stimulating  effect  of  the 
MnS04  appears  to  have  extended  throughout  all  concentrations 
and  would  seem  to  have  been  greatest  at  the  medium  high  con- 
centrations, as  is  indicated  in  table  IXc.  While  much  better 
agreement  between  duplicate  determinations  could  have  been 
desired,  the  clear  superiority  in  yield  of  the  majority  of  treated 
pots,  when  compared  with  the  controls,  leaves  scarcely  any  room 
for  doubt  that  we  are  here  confronted  with  real  cases  of  stimu- 
lating effects.  The  results  are  the  more  interesting  and  striking 
since  large  concentrations  of  MnS04  are  involved.  The  results 
call  for  further  observations  on  the  apparent  reversal  of  results 
between  the  second  and  third  crops  and  between  the  second 
and  first  crops.  Unfortunately,  no  definite  leads  are  in  our  pos- 
session which  would  aid  us  in  answering  this  question.  Theo- 
retically, however,  it  would  seem  possible  to  explain  the  facts 
as  follows :  In  the  first  crop  the  large  quantity  of  organic  matter 
present  in  the  soil  brings  about  the  adsorption  of  the  MnS04 
and  leaves  the  active  soil  solution  relatively  dilute  in  that  salt. 
This  low  concentration  acts  as  a  stimulant  to  both  the  higher 
plants  and  the  soil  flora  and  induces  an  increased  yield.  After 
one  season  of  exposure  to  sun  and  cultivation,  the  soil  loses  a 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  529 

considerable  portion  of  its  organic-matter  snpply  and  therefore 
possesses  a  much  smaller  surface  for  adsorption  of  MnS04 
Hence  the  usable  portion  of  the  soil  solution  would  tend  to 
become  more  concentrated  with  respect  to  that  salt  and  induce 
depressions  in  yield  of  roots  and  grain.  By  the  time  the  third 
crop  is  planted,  thorough  oxidation  of  the  MnS04  has  occurred 
and  most  of  the  manganese  is  rendered  insoluble,  thus  leaving 
again  only  a  small  quantity  of  the  salt  in  the  soil  solution.  This 
acts  as  a  stimulant,  as  it  did  in  the  first  crop,  and  induces  an 
increased  yield  again.  This  explanation,  while  open  to  question 
in  one  or  two  important  respects,  may  prove  of  some  assistance 
in  the  ultimate  clearing  up  of  the  somewhat  perplexing  facts 
which  are  here  considered.  Other  explanations,  involving  the 
relationship  of  MnS04  to  the  soil  colloids  and  to  other  phases 
of  the  soil  solution  besides  that  above  mentioned,  offer  them- 
selves at  this  time,  but  they  must  all  await  the  further  study  of 
fundamental  principles  of  plant  physiology  before  they  can  be 
considered  to  advantage.  Irrespective  of  the  theoretical  argu- 
ments which  may  account  for  the  results  obtained  in  the  MnS04 
series,  the  striking  facts  relating  to  the  changes  in  effect  on 
three  successive  crops  of  a  given  salt  application  made  prior 
to  the  first  planting  are  of  great  practical  moment.  Not  only 
do  they  render  of  doubtful  value  for  practical  purposes  one 
season's  results  on  the  effects  of  salts  on  crops,  but  they  cause 
one  to  wonder  if  anything  less  than  five  successive  crops  should 
ever  constitute  sufficient  evidence  upon  which  to  base  a  judg- 
ment. Taking  all  of  our  results  together,  it  may  be  said  in 
general  that  MnS04  is  to  be  regarded,  for  a  limited  period  at 
least,  as  definitely  stimulating  to  barley  growth  in  soils. 

Manganese  Chloride 
As  pointed  out  above,  MnCl,  was  tested  along  with  MnS04, 
so  that  manganese  in  different  compounds  might  be  studied  for 
itself  as  well  as  in  comparison  with  other  elements.  The  experi- 
ment was  arranged  similarly  to  that  of  the  MnS04  series,  and 
details  with  respect  to  it,  together  with  the  results  obtained,  are 
set  forth  in  tables  Xa,  X&,  and  Xc  for  the  three  crops  grown. 


530       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

First  Crop 

Table  Xa  shows  the  striking  effects  of  concentrations  of 
MnCl2  on  barley  growth  in  the  greenhouse  soil  during  the  first 
crop.  Whereas  the  first  three  concentrations  of  that  salt,  namely 
500  p.  p.  hi.,  1000  p.  p.  in.,  and  1500  p.  p.  m.,  give  veiy  marked 
stimulation  to  barley  growth  (far  more  indeed  than  that  given 
by  similar  concentrations  of  MnS04),  amounts  in  excess  of  1500 
p.  p.  m.  MnCl2  are  very  markedly  toxic.  This  toxicity  increases 
strikingly  with  the  increase  in  concentration  in  MnCl2  beyond 
2500  p.  p.  m.,  until  at  a  concentration  of  6000  p.  p.  m.  almost 
no  growth  is  obtained.  Even  the  difference  between  1500  p.  p.  m. 
and  2000  p.  p.  m.  in  the  soil  means  a  change  from  a  high  degree 
of  stimulation  for  barley  production  to  a  marked  toxicity  and 
a  decrease  of  about  50  per  cent  in  the  yield.  No  series  of  salt 
concentrations  studied  by  us  and  reviewed  above  gave  anything 
like  the  sharpness  of  manifestation  of  toxicity  that  is  noted  in 
the  first  crop  of  the  MnCl2  series.  We  are  evidently  dealing 
again  with  the  acute  toxicity  of  chlorine  for  living  cells  which 
we  have  on  other  occasions  pointed  out  in  various  connections. 
This  is  true,  if  we  may  repeat  again,  despite  the  fact  that  at  the 
lower  concentrations,  chlorine  may,  as  is  strikingly  exemplified 
in  table  Xa,  give  astounding  evidences  of  stimulation  to  barley 
which  surpasses  any  noted  above  with  other  and  more  uniformly 
stimulating  substances. 

When  we  study  straw  and  root  yields  separately  we  find 
that,  in  general,  the  effects  of  MnCl2  are  similar  with  respect 
to  both  in  the  first  crop.  The  roots  are,  to  be  sure,  only  slightly 
stimulated  in  growth  in  the  first  three  concentrations  employed, 
whereas  the  tops  are  enormously  stimulated.  When,  however, 
the  toxicity  of  MnCl2  becomes  apparent,  it  is  equally  striking 
in  the  roots  and  tops,  as  the  figures  in  the  table  clearly  show. 
While  in  some  respects,  therefore,  and  particularly  as  regards 
stimulation,  the  MnCl2  behaves  like  the  MnS04  in  the  first  crop 
and  the  first  three  concentrations,  it  is  totally  different  from  the 
latter  salt  in  giving  marked  evidences  of  toxicity  at  concentra- 
tions in  excess  of  1500  p.  p.  m.  Nevertheless  MnS04  still  con- 
tinues to  stimulate  growth,  even  though  it  does  so  very  slightly 
throughout  the  series.     On  the  other  hand,  although  the  resem- 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  531 

blance  between  the  behavior  of  MnS04  and  MnCl,  in  the  first 
crop  is  limited  in  extent,  MnCl2  resembles  MnS04  much  more 
in  its  effects  on  barley  growth  in  the  first  crop  than  it  does  any 
of  the  other  salts  under  similar  circumstances.  Again,  we  are 
obliged  to  stop  with  this  general  comparison  owing  to  the  high 
concentrations  of  MnCl2  employed,  as  compared  with  the  rela- 
tively much  lower  or  much  higher  concentrations  of  the  other 
salts  employed. 

Second  Crop 

When  the  total  dry  matter  is  considered  (see  table  X6),  the 
second  crop  of  the  MnCl,  series  gives  the  latter  salt  a  reversal 
of  form.  At  the  first  three  concentrations  at  which  it  notably 
stimulated  the  production  of  dry  matter  in  the  first  crop,  it 
becomes  decidedly  toxic  in  the  second  crop.  On  the  other  hand, 
at  the  concentrations  above  1500  p.  p.  m.,  at  which  it  was  acutely 
toxic  in  the  first  crop,  MnCl2  is  stimulating  when  the  total 
yields  of  the  treated  as  against  those  of  the  untreated  pots  are 
considered.  Such  marked  reversal  of  effects  of  MnCl2  between 
two  succeeding  crops  on  the  same  soil  needs  further  attention 
under  the  general  discussion  below.  Following  the  procedure 
employed  in  the  case  of  the  other  series,  we  may  now  study  sep- 
arately the  yields  of  straw,  grain,  and  roots  as  given  in  table 
X?;.  Taking  the  straw  yields  first,  we  find  that  they  were,  in 
all  cases  but  one  or  possibly  two  in  the  series,  much  larger  than 
those  of  the  control  pots,  and  that  at  concentrations  in  excess 
of  1500  p.  p.  m.  the  average  yield  of  straw  was  nearly  twice  as 
great  as  that  of  the  control  pots.  While  different  in  degree, 
therefore,  this  effect  of  MnCl2  in  the  second  crop  is  very  similar 
in  kind  to  that  exerted  by  MnS04  in  the  second  crop  with 
respect  to  the  yield  of  straw. 

In  the  case  of  the  grain,  however,  we  find  totally  different 
conditions,  for  here  only  one  case  of  stimulation  is  noted  and 
that,  owing  to  the  great  discrepancy  in  the  duplicates,  is  an 
unsafe  one  to  accept.  In  excess  of  3000  p.  p.  m.,  MnCl2  mani- 
fests a  very  marked  toxicity  so  far  as  grain  production  is 
concerned,  until  at  6000  p.  p.  m.  very  little  or  no  grain  is  pro- 
duced.    This  result  is  again  different  only  in  degree,   not  in 


532        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

kind,  from  that  of  the  corresponding  one  in  the  MnS04  series. 
Respecting  root  yields,  the  toxic  effects  of  MnCL  in  the  second 
crop  are  apparent  throughout  the  whole  series.  While  the  de- 
creases are  not  quite  so  great  at  the  lower  concentrations  of 
MnCL  as  they  are  at  the  higher  concentrations,  they  are  not 
far  different,  and  in  general  amount  to  from  40  to  60  per  cent 
of  the  amount  yielded  by  the  control  pots.  We  see  in  the  root 
yields,  therefore,  a  further  analogy  between  the  second  crop  of 
the  MnCL  series  and  that  of  the  MnS04  series.  In  brief,  it 
should  be  observed  that  while  wide  discrepancies  in  total  yields 
of  dry  matter  are  noted  between  the  second  crops  of  the  MnCL 
and  MnS04  series,  the  discrepancies  are  superseded  by  striking 
resemblances  when  the  straw,  grain,  and  root  yields  are  com- 
pared separately  in  the  two  series.  Since  the  differences  seem 
to  be  those  of  degree  only,  is  it  not  possible  that  we  have  here 
the  dominant  manifestations  of  the  effects  of  manganese,  which 
are  only  slightly  modified  by  the  element  or  elements  combined 
therewith?  If  this  were  not  the  case,  would  we  not  expect  to 
find  much  larger  discrepancies  between  the  two  series  in  ques- 
tion, based  on  the  specifically  different  effects  of  the  -CI  and 
the  -S04  ions  on  barley  growth? 

Third  Crop 
The  stimulating  powers  of  manganese,  as  exemplified  in  the 
effects  of  MnS04  ions  on  the  third  crop  of  barley,  are  again 
manifest  but  very  much  more  strikingly  in  the  third  crop  of 
the  MnCL  series.  While  the  yields  of  duplicate  pots  still  fail 
to  agree  closely  in  a  number  of  the  salt  concentrations  tested, 
they  show  a  much  better  agreement  than  those  of  the  MnS04 
series.  At  any  rate,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  stimulating 
effects  of  manganese  chloride  for  barley  grown  in  the  greenhouse 
soil  even  in  the  third  crop.  Again,  as  was  the  case  in  the  MnS04 
series,  the  MnCL  stimulates  the  production  of  all  parts  of 
the  plant  and  not  merely  of  any  one  portion  of  the  dry  mat- 
ter thereof.  Thus,  for  example,  whereas  there  was  practically 
no  stimulation  to  grain  production  in  the  second  crop  of  the 
MnCL  series,  the  third  crop  shows  such  stimulation  markedly 
throughout  the  series.     In  no  case,  further,  so  far  as  the  total 


1917]  Lipman-Gcrickc :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  533 

dry  weight  produced  is  concerned,  did  any  of  the  treated  pots 
produce  so  low  a  yield  as  the  control  pots,  when  averages  are 
considered.  The  great  immunity  to  chlorine  which  the  plants 
in  the  third  crop  of  this  series  manifest  is  very  difficult  to 
explain.  In  general,  however,  the  changes  in  the  effects  of 
MnCl2  from  one  crop  to  another  are  much  the  same  in  nature 
as  those  of  the  MnS04  series  which  have  been  discussed  more 
in  detail  above.  It  looks  obvious  that  we  are  dealing  primarily 
in  both  manganese  series  with  the  effects  of  the  kation  rather 
than  with  those  of  the  anions,  though,  to  be  sure,  specific  effects 
of  the  latter  do  not  seem  to  be  wanting.  The  balance  of  the 
data  presented  in  table  Xc  speaks  for  itself. 


COMPARISON  OF  OUR  RESULTS  WITH  THOSE  OF 
PREVIOUS  INVESTIGATORS 

It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  review  in  detail  the  results  of  the 
numerous  investigations  which  bear  on  the  subject  in  hand,  par- 
ticularly those  relating  to  copper  and  its  influence  on  living 
organisms.  Although,  therefore,  we  are  herewith  citing  a  very 
extensive  bibliography,  we  shall  make  no  attempt  at  reviewing 
all  of  the  investigations  which  have  been  carried  out.  It  does 
seem  desirable,  however,  to  compare  in  general  the  results  of 
our  investigations  with  those  of  other  researches  in  the  hope  that 
we  may  thereby  arrive  at  some  definite  understanding,  now  that 
so  much  experimental  work  has  been  accomplished,  as  to  the 
real  status  of  the  salts  in  question  in  the  realm  of  plant  physi- 
ology. In  order  to  simplify  such  discussion,  we  shall  take  up 
the  different  so-called  toxic  metals  separately. 

Copper  Sulfate 
As  pointed  out  above,  the  bibliography  on  the  subject  of 
copper  and  its  effects  on  plants  is  very  extensive.     One  needs 
but  to  turn  to  the  complete  reviews  of  it  by  Czapek,s  Pfeffer,0 


8  Biochemie  der  Pflanzen,  vol.  2,  p.  910,  Jena,  1905. 

'■>  Pflanzenphysiologie,  vols.  1  and  2,  Leipzig,  1897  and  1901. 


534        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

and  Brenchley10  to  be  confirmed  in  that  opinion.  The  general 
impression  given  by  the  reviewers  is  that  so  far  as  plants  are 
concerned,  copper  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  distinctly  toxic  sub- 
stance. To  quote  Brenchley  from  the  work  above  cited,  for 
example :  ' '  Altogether,  after  looking  at  the  question  from  many 
points  of  view,  one  is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  under  most 
typical  circumstances,  copper  compounds  act  as  poisons  to  the 
higher  plants,  and  that  it  is  only  under  particular  and  peculiar 
conditions  and  in  very  great  dilutions  that  any  stimulative 
action  on  their  part  can  be  clearly  demonstrated."  This  state- 
ment is  not  qualified  with  respect  to  the  kind  of  medium  em- 
ployed for  testing  the  effects  of  copper  on  plants.  But  whether 
it  be  applied  to  solution  or  to  soil  cultures,  it  would  scarcely 
seem  to  be  adequately  supported  by  experimental  evidence,  and 
particularly  is  this  true  regarding  soil  cultures.  In  solution 
cultures,  copper  in  various  compounds  was  found  to  be  toxic 
to  the  higher  plants  by  Otto,11  Haselhoff,12  Coupin,13  Kanda,1* 
True  and  Gies,15  True  and  Oglevee,18  Jensen,17  Brenchley,18 
Heald,1!l  Harter,20  and  Haywood.-'1  While  exceedingly  high 
dilutions  of  copper  salts  were  employed  by  some  of  these  in- 
vestigators, the  possibility  still  exists  in  their  work  that  the 
tin  rest  i  races  of  copper  may  have  acted  as  stimulants.  More- 
over, in  the  case  of  Jensen's  work  the  evidence  on  the  toxicity 
of  very  dilute  solutions  of  copper  salts  is  really  negative,  since 
lie  emphasizes  principally  the  fact  that  no  stinmlation  was 
observed  with  CuS04  in  solution  cultures. 


io  Inorganic  plant  poisons   and  stimulants,   Cambridge,    1914. 

ii  Ztsehr.  Pflanzenkrank.,  vol.  3,  no.  6;  Bot.  Cent.,  56,  p.  340;  E.  S.  R,, 
5,  p.  649. 

1^  Landw.  Jahrb.,  21,  p.  263;  E.  S.  E.,  3,  p.  499. 

"Comptes  Rendus  Acad.  Sci.,  Paris,  127,  p.  400;  E.  S.  R.,  10,  p.  611. 

» Jour.  Col.  Sei.  Imp.  Univ.  Tokyo,  19,  p.  47;  Bot.  Cent.  95,  p.  538; 
E.  S.  R.,  16,  p.  228. 

is  Bull.  Torr.  Bot.  Club,  30,  p.  390. 

is  Bot.  Gaz.,  39,  p.  1;  Science,  19,  p.  421. 

i"  Bot.  Gaz.,  43,  p.  11. 

is  Inorganic  plant,  poisons  and  stimulants,  Cambridge,   1914. 

io  Bot.  Gaz.,  22,  p.  125. 

=0  TJ.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  PI.  Ind.,  Bull.  79,  p.  40. 

2i  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Chem.,  Bulls,  nos.  89,  113,  and  113,  revised. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericle :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  535 

Opposed  to  the  findings  of  the  investigators  just  named 
were  those  which  showed  evidence  of  stimulating  effects  of  cop- 
per salts  to  plants  in  solution  cultures.  Among  these  investi- 
gators were  Tschirch,22  Montemartini,23  and  Forbes.24  So  far 
as  germination  of  seeds  is  concerned,  Effront25  also  noted  the 
stimulating  effect  of  copper.  Owing  to  conflicts  in  the  results 
obtained  by  different  investigators  working  with  copper  in  solu- 
tion cultures,  one  seems  scarcely  justified  in  subscribing  to  the 
statement  above  quoted  from  Brenchley,  even  if  it  were  made 
to  apply  only  to  solution  cultures.  As  Dr.  Brenchley  herself 
admits,  there  is  no  absolutely  satisfactory  method  for  determin- 
ing whether  or  not  a  certain  substance  is  toxic  or  stimulating 
to  plants.  But  from  the  theoretical  standpoint  of  ascertain- 
ing how  the  protoplasm  of  the  plant  is  affected  by  a  given 
substance,  if  at  all,  the  solution-culture  method  is  the  only  one 
involved,  since  the  other  methods  are  confessedly  not  intended 
to  show  anything  more  than  effects  of  substances  on  plants  under 
conditions  closely  approximating  the  natural.  If,  then,  the 
solution  culture  method  is  the  only  one  among  those  at  present 
known  that  is  suitable  for  studying  the  effects  of  different  chem- 
icals on  plant  growth  in  a  more  or  less  intimate  way,  why  do  we 
obtain  the  conflicting  results  above  noted  with  respect  to  the 
effects  of  copper  on  plants  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  to  be 
found  in  a  number  of  circumstances  surrounding  the  manipula- 
tion of  the  solution-culture  method.  Some  investigators  use 
distilled  water,  others  use  tap  water,  still  others  physiologically 
balanced  solutions  of  a  large  variety.  For  reasons  well  known 
to  plant  physiologists,  the  results  of  such  different  media  among 
the  solution  cultures  must  show  wide  discrepancies.  If,  however, 
the  claim  is  made  that  all  media  but  pure  distilled  water  be 
discarded  in  such  work,  owing  to  the  factors  of  salt  antagonisms 
which  enter  into  salt  solutions  to  vitiate  results,  a  very  strong 
counter-claim  can  be  made.  The  protoplasm  of  plant  cells  is  not 
in  a  natural  medium  when  it  is  placed  in  distilled  water,  and 


22  Abstract  in  Chem.  Ztg.,  18,  p.  320;  E.  S.  R.,  6,  p.  872. 

23  Staz.  Sper.  Agr.  Ital.,  44,  p.  564. 

2*  Results  soon  to  be  published,  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Agri.  Sci. 
25Compt.  Rend.  Acad.  Sci.  (Paris),  141,  p.  626;  E.  S.  R.,  18,  p.  126. 


536        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

hence  it  may  manifest  distress  and  weakness  which  under  nat- 
ural conditions  might  be  quite  impossible.  Owing  to  osmotic 
influences,  the  plant  would  lose  salts  and  other  substances  to  the 
distilled  water  more  quickly  and  in  larger  quantity  than  to  tap 
water  or  to  a  balanced  solution.  It  would  therefore  be  more 
subject  to  weakening  or  to  the  absorption  of  toxic  materials  in 
the  former  than  in  the  latter  medium.  In  other  words,  under 
such  circumstances  copper,  for  example,  would  merely  exagger- 
ate the  untoward  conditions  for  plant  growth,  while  it  might 
have  no  power  to  affect  the  plant  under  more  favorable  condi- 
tions. Again,  seeds  are  not  usually  allowed  to  germinate  in 
the  solution  which  is  to  be  tested  in  the  cultures,  but  in  a  medium 
of  a  harmless  nature.  Does  not  sudden  removal  to  salt-solution 
cultures  render  them  less  immune  to  certain  substances  than  if 
they  had  been  allowed  to  accustom  themselves  from  the  begin- 
ning to  a  given  salt  ? 

We  do  not  desire  to  give  the  impression  from  these  arguments 
that  we  deprecate  the  use  of  the  solution-culture  method.  On 
the  contrary,  we  think  it  of  great  value  in  the  study  of  many 
fundamental  problems  and  also  for  obtaining  relative  data. 
When,  however,  one  attempts  to  use  it  in  drawing  absolute 
conclusions  for  purposes  of  application  to  such  a  subject  as  that 
under  consideration,  it  falls  as  far  short  of  throwing  light  on  the 
actual  effects  of  a  given  substance  on  plant  protoplasm  (as  the 
latter  is  situated  under  natural  conditions),  as  does  any  other 
method  of  study  now  employed.  We  believe  that  the  conflicts 
in  the  results  just  reviewed  are  perhaps  explicable  on  one  of  the 
bases  above  discussed;  and  since  no  modification  of  the  solution- 
culture  method  is  free  from  serious  objection,  we  must  accord 
equal  value  to  all  results  of  reliable  investigators.  Consequently 
we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  in  the  experiments  above  cited 
there  is  no  absolute  evidence  that  copper  is  or  is  not  stimulating 
to  plant  protoplasm  in  solution  cultures.  While  there  appears 
to  be  more  evidence  that  copper  is  toxic  under  the  conditions 
and  in  the  concentrations  named  than  that  it  is  stimulating,  we 
cannot  admit  that  the  plant  has  been  tested  in  any  two  of 
the  experiments  under  essentially  the  conditions  of  its  natural 


1917]  Lipvian-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  537 

habitat.  Since  plants  are,  after  all,  to  be  found  growing  natu- 
rally only  in  soils,  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  ns, 
in  attempting  the  study  of  the  effect  of  a  certain  substance  or 
substances  on  them,  whether  they  are  supplied  with  normal 
conditions  for  their  development  or  not. 

Proceeding  now  to  an  examination  of  the  results  obtained 
by  other  investigators  on  the  effects  of  copper  on  plants  grown 
in  soil  or  sand  instead  of  solutions  we  find  many  interesting 
observations.  Injurious  effects  of  CuS04  at  the  rate  of  about 
400,  800,  and  1600  pounds  per  acre  to  potatoes  and  beans  were 
noted  by  Steglich,20  but  he  failed  to  observe  such  toxic  effects 
on  the  same  soil  to  strawberries  or  fruit  trees.  Haselhoff27  claims 
also  to  have  noted  injury  to  grass,  beans,  and  other  plants  from 
smelter  smoke  containing  copper.  Owing  to  other  conflicting 
factors  concerned  in  smelter-smoke  injury,  Haselhoff 's  results 
are  open  to  serious  criticism.  Simon28  experimented  with  oats 
and  mustard  on  garden  soil,  clay,  and  sand,  and  used  amounts 
of  CuS04  varying  from  0.01  per  cent  to  10  per  cent.  His  state- 
ments imply  that  copper  was  toxic  throughout,  with  the  oat 
plants  showing  more  resistance  than  the  mustard,  and  that 
CuS04  was  least  toxic  in  garden  soil  and  most  toxic  in  the  sand. 
Opposed  to  the  three  cases  just  cited  are  numerous  results  show- 
ing the  stimulating  effects  of  copper  to  plant  growth  in  soils. 
We  find  among  these  the  results  obtained  by  Girard,29  Kanda,30 
Jensen,31  Voelcker,32  Forbes,33  and  Sachser.34  A  large  number 
of  observations  have  also  been  made  on  the  stimulating  effects, 
or  lack  of  any  effect,  of  copper  sprays,  and  in  other  ways  of  the 
effect  following  direct  contact  of  the  copper  solution  with  plant 
cells,    among    which    may   be    mentioned    those    of    Prank    and 


26  Ber.   Tat.   Landw.   Abt.   K.   Vers.    Stat.    Pflanzenkult,    Dresden,    p.    4, 
1903;  E.  S.  E.,  16,  p.  133. 

27  Fiihling's  Landw.  Ztg.,  vol.  57,  no.  18,  p.  609;  E.  S.  E.,  20,  p.  831. 

28  Landw.  Vers.  Stat.,  71,  p.  417 ;  E.  S.  E.,  22,  p.  439. 

29  C.  E.  Acad.  Sei.,  Paris,  120,  p.  1147;  E.  S.  E.,  7,  p.  99. 

so  Jour.  Col.  Sci.  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  19,  p.  47 ;  E.  S.  E.,  16,  p.  228. 
3i  Bot.  Gaz.,  43,  p.  11 ;  E.  S.  E.,  18,  p.  625. 

32  Jour.   Eoy.  Agr.   Society,   England,   vols.   73,   74,   and   75,   Eeport   for 
1912,  1913,  and  1914. 

33  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Agr.  Sci.,  1,  no.  12,  1917. 

34  Cent.  Agr.  Chem.,  33,  p.  533 ;  E.  S.  E.,  16,  p.  865. 


538        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

Kruger,35  MacDougal,36  Chuard  and  Porchet,"7  Demoussy,38 
Praudi,39  Olive,40  and  Molinari  and  Ligot.41  In  addition  to  all 
these  results,  which  show  either  no  toxicity  or  decidedly  stimu- 
lating effects  on  plants  from  the  use  of  copper  (usually  CuS04) 
in  soil,  there  are  extant  a  number  which  testify  to  the  high 
resistance  of  plants  in  soil  to  extremely  large  amounts  of  copper 
(Such,  for  example,  as  from  2  per  cent  to  5  per  cent  of  the 
dry  weight  of  the  soil).  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the 
observations  of  Van  Slyke42  and  Pammel.43 

All  of  these  findings  render  it  extremely  improbable  that 
copper  in  soil,  can  at  any  time  be  considered  definitely  toxic 
in  relatively  small  quantities  (say,  below  0.10  per  cent  of  the 
dry  weight  of  the  soil).  On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  seems 
very  well  established  that  positive  stimulation  of  plants  may  be 
induced  through  the  use  of  small  quantities  of  copper  (say,  from 
0.01  to  0.05  per  cent  of  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil),  in  the  form 
of  CuS04  particularly,  and  possibly  also  in  other  forms.  Our 
investigations  as  discussed  would  seem  to  confirm  and  be  con- 
firmed by  earlier  investigations  of  the  senior  author  and  P.  H. 
Wilson  and  by  numerous  other  experiments  carried  out  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  American  and  European  continents  and  in  Eng- 
land. These  observations  would  appear  therefore  to  refute  the 
conclusion  of  Dr.  Brenchley  which  is  above  quoted  and  to  point 
clearly,  through  the  added  data  which  we  have  submitted,  to 
the  conclusion  that  copper  in  the  form  of  CuS04  is  to  be  re- 
garded, at  some  concentrations,  as  being  decidedly  stimulating 
to  some  plants  grown  in  soils,  and,  what  is  perhaps  more  im- 
portant, relatively  innocuous  in  large  amounts.  The  mechanism 
of  the  stimulation  obtained  does  not  involve  one  single  effect, 
but  probably  several.     We  know,  for  example,  through  experi- 


ss  Ber.  deutsch.  bot.  Gesell.,  12,  p.  8 ;  E.  S.  E.,  5,  p.  926. 
ssBot.  Gaz.,  27,  p.  68;  E.  S.  E.,  11,  p.  24. 

3T  Bull.   Soc.   Vaud.  Sci.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.   36,   p.   71 ;    Bull.   Murith. 
Soe.,  Valais  Sci.  Nat.,  no.  33,  p.  204. 

38  Ann.  Agron.,  27,  p.  257;  E.  S.  E.,  13,  p.  657. 

soStaz.  Sper.  Agr.  Ital.,  40,  p.  531;  E.  S.  E.,  19,  p.  755. 

40  S.  Dak.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  112 ;  E.  S.  E.,  21,  p.  436. 

4i  Ann.  Gembloux,  18,  p.  609 ;  E.  S.  E.,  20,  p.  873. 

"  N.  Y.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  41. 

"3  Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  16. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  539 

ments44  carried  out  in  our  laboratory,  that  copper  is  markedly 
effective  in  increasing  the  nitrifying  activity  of  soils ;  we  know, 
from  other  results  which  we  have  obtained,  but  not  yet  published, 
that  the  minerals  of  the  soil  are  rendered  more  easily  available 
through  the  action  of  CuS04 ;  we  know  from  the  results  of 
Porchet  and  Chuard  that  plant  cells  may  be  directly  stimulated 
by  CuS04.  It  is  therefore  reasonable  to  explain  any  stimulating 
effects  of  copper  in  soil  cultures  as  being  of  a  complex  nature 
and  the  results  of  better  conditions  for  plant  growth  either 
directly  or  indirectly  induced  by  copper  through  influences 
known  to  be  characteristic  of  it  as  just  explained. 

Zinc  Sulfate 

We  may  now  review,  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  employed 
for  CuS04,  the  results  obtained  by  other  investigators  as  com- 
pared with  our  results  on  the  effects  of  ZnS04  on  plant  growth. 
Data  indicating  the  toxicity  of  zinc  to  plants  grown  in  solution 
cultures  have  been  obtained  by  Baumann,43  Jensen,46  Krauch,47 
Storp,48  True  and  Gies,4!)  and  Brenchley.50  Most  of  these  toxic 
effects  were  obtained  with  relatively  small  quantities  of  zinc 
salts  and  usually  under  conditions  antagonistic  to  their  toxic 
effects  owing  to  the  presence  of  nutrient  salts.  As  opposed  to 
these  evidences  of  the  toxicity  to  plants  of  zinc,  we  have  at 
times,  in  the  work  of  the  same  investigators,  manifestations  of 
the  stimulating  effects  of  zinc  in  solution  cultures.  For  example, 
Brenchley  admits  in  the  monograph  cited  a  slight  stimulation 
of  peas  by  ZnS04,  while  showing  the  latter  to  be  toxic  to  barley. 
Jensen,  too,  whose  work  is  described,  while  obtaining  no  stimu- 
lation for  ZnS04,  likewise  showed  no  toxicity  thereof  in  dilute 
solution,  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  possibility  exists  of 


44  Lipman  and  Burgess,  The  Effects  of  Copper,  Zinc,  Lead,  and  Iron  on 
Ammonification  and  Nitrification  in  Soils,  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Agri.  Sci., 
vol.  1,  p.  127. 

45  Landw.  Versuchs.  Stat.,  31,  p.  1. 
46Bot.  Gaz.,  43,  p.  11. 

«  Jour,  fur  Landw.,  30,  p.  271. 

4«  Landw.  Jahrb.,  12,  p.  795. 

«  Bull.  Torrey  Bot.  Club,  30,  p.  390. 

50  Inorganic  plant  poisons  and  stimulants,  Cambridge,  1914. 


540        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

a  stimulating  power  of  ZnS04  at  still  greater  dilutions  than  those 
which  he  employed.  More  direct  evidence  of  the  stimulating 
effects  of  ZnS04  is  given  by  Kanda51  in  solutions  free  from 
nutrient  salts,  and  by  Javillier52  in  nutrient  solutions.  So  far 
as  solution  cultures  of  all  kinds  are  concerned,  therefore,  the 
evidence  with  respect  to  the  effects  of  zinc  on  plants  is  conflict- 
ing, it  being  as  strong  on  the  side  of  stimulation  at  great 
dilutions  of  ZnS04  as  on  that  of  lack  of  it  or  of  definite  toxicity. 
Let  us  now  examine  the  data  available  in  which  a  solid 
substratum  such  as  sand  or  soil  is  used  instead  of  the  solution. 
Direct  observation  of  toxicity  of  zinc  to  plants  in  solid  media  is 
given  by  Storp,  whose  work  is  above  cited,  by  Noble,  Baessler, 
and  Will,53  Jensch,54  Ehrenberg,55  and  Haselhoff  and  Gossel.56 
Evidence  of  the  non-effectiveness  of  zinc  either  as  a  toxic  or 
stimulating  agent  is  given  by  Phillips,57  by  Holdefleiss,58  and 
by  Haselhoff  and  Gossel 59  As  against  these  results,  however, 
we  have  many  others  showing  definitely  stimulating  effects 
of  zinc  on  plants  grown  in  sand  or  soil.  Among  them  may  be 
mentioned  those  of  Kanda,60  Jensen,01  Silberberg,62  Zaleski  and 
Reinhard,33  Ehrenberg,04  Bertrand,05  Nakamura  (with  some 
plants  only),60  Javillier,07  Roxas,68  Lipman  and  Wilson,69  and 
the  present  writers.     While,  however,  the  evidence  appears  to 


si  Jour.   Col.   Sci.,   Tokyo   Imp.   Univ.,   19,   p.    1. 

52  Compt.  Eend.,  etc.,  155,  p.  1551. 

53  Landw.  Versuchs.  Stat.,  30,  p.  380. 

54  Ztschr.  Angew.  Chem.,  14,  p.  5. 
ss  Chem.  Zeit.,  32,  p.  937. 

se  Ztschr.  Pflanzenkrank.,  14,  p.  193 ;  E.  S.  E.,  16,  p.  952. 

57  Chem.  News,  46,  p.  224. 

ss  Landw.  Versuchs.  Stat.,  28,  p.  472. 

so  Ztschr.  Pflanzenkrank.,  14,  p.  193 ;  E.  S.  E.,  16,  p.  952. 

eo  Jour.  Col.   Sci.,  Imp.  Univ.  Tokyo,   19,  p.  47. 

ei  Bot.  Gaz.,  43,  p.  11. 

62  Bull.  Torrey  Bot.  Club,  36,  p.  480. 

63  Biochem.  Ztchr.,  23,  p.  193. 

64  Landw.  Versuchs.  Stat.,  72,  p.  15. 
esEev.  Sci.   (Paris),  49,  p.  673. 

66  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  6,  p.  147. 

67  Ann.  Inst.  Pasteur,  22,  p.  720 ;  also  7th  Internat.  Cong.  Appl.  Chem., 
see.  vii,  Agr.  Chem.,  p.  163. 

68  Philippine  Agric.  and  Forester,  1,  p.  89. 

69  Bot.  Gaz.,  55,  p.  409. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  541 

be  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  stimulating  effects  of  zinc  to 
plant  growth  in  soils,  several  instances  of  stimulation  are  quali- 
fied to  hold  for  certain  plants  only  or  at  very  low  concentrations 
of  the  metal.  Therefore  the  data  submitted  are  not  as  strong  in 
favor  of  the  stimulating  effect  of  zinc  salts  to  plants  as  one  would 
suppose  from  the  review  above  given.  Nevertheless,  it  is  strong 
enough  in  our  opinion  to  satisfy  even  the  critical  that  zinc  can 
be  a  stimulant  to  plant  growth  in  certain  rather  considerable  con- 
centrations. Besides  that,  its  toxic  effects  are  nowhere  to  be 
regarded  as  very  serious  if  small  quantities  of  the  salt  are 
present.  Our  results  indicate,  in  addition  to  all  this,  that  ZnS04, 
for  example,  may  be  stimulating  to  barley  growth  at  consider- 
able concentrations,  but  that  the  after-effects  on  the  soil  in  the 
third  season  or  crop  may  be  injurious.  Such  injury,  however,  is 
relatively  speaking,  not  very  great  unless  very  high  concentra- 
tions of  ZnS04  are  employed.  Even  in  the  third  season  of 
cropping  in  the  case  of  the  same  soil,  it  appears  that  ZnS04  con- 
tinues to  be  stimulating  to  barley  at  a  concentration  of  200 
p.  p.  m.  of  that  salt  as  referred  to  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil  in 
question.  Moreover,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  reversal  from  a 
toxic  to  a  stimulating  condition  occurring  in  the  manganese 
series  between  the  second  and  third  crop  might  occur  in  the  zinc 
series  between  the  third  and  fourth  crop.  This  possibility  would 
seem  to  find  some  support  from  the  fact  that  the  third  crop 
in  the  zinc  series  corresponds  to  the  second  crop  of  the  man- 
ganese series,  since  two  treatments — one  before  the  first,  and  one 
before  the  second  crop — were  given  to  the  zinc-treated  pots. 

Iron  Sulfate 
Results  obtained  in  experimental  trials  with  FeS04  in  cul- 
tures of  the  higher  plants  have  been  perhaps  more  contradictory 
than  those  noted  in  the  cases  of  CuS04  and  ZnS04  which  are 
reviewed  above.  This  is  particularly  manifest  in  the  extensive 
bibliography  prepared  by  Horton70  dealing  with  the  use  of 
sulfate  of  iron  in  agriculture.  While  the  latter  emphasizes 
primarily  the  results  obtained  with  FeS04  in  combating  weeds, 


"o  A    Contribution   to   the   bibliography    of   the   use   of   sulfate    of   iron 
in  agriculture,  Chicago,  1906. 


542        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

a  large  number  of  experiments  are  cited,  among  which  are  to  be 
found  eases  of  injury,  ineffectiveness,  and  stimulation  by  FeS04 
to  crop  plants.  Very  few  experiments  appear  to  have  been 
reported  on  the  effect  on  plant  growth  of  FeS04  or  other  iron 
compounds  in  solution  cultures.  Those  that  are  given  indicate 
the  uniformly  toxic  nature  of  iron  to  the  higher  plants  under 
the  conditions  noted.  For  evidence  on  this  point,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  investigations  of  Boiret  and  Paturel,71  Gile,72 
Ruprecht,73  Thompson,74  and  Knop.75  No  case  has  as  yet  come 
to  our  notice  of  the  stimulating  effects  of  iron  salts  to  plants  in 
solution  cultures. 

In  soil  cultures  the  picture  is  an  entirely  different  one,  and 
it  is  under  those  conditions  that  we  observe  the  contradictory 
results  mentioned  above.  Distinct  cases  of  injury  by  FeS04  to 
plants  in  soil  cultures  have  been  reported.  In  illustration  of 
these,  may  be  mentioned  statements  of  Voeleker,76  Steglich,77 
Nessler,78  Ilalsted,7'1  and  others.  As  showing  FeS04  to  be  with- 
out effect  on  plants  grown  in  soils,  may  be  mentioned  the  experi- 
ments of  Scovell  and  Peter,80  A.  Mayer,81  Boiret  and  Paturel,82 
Petit,83  Larbaletrier  and  Malpeaux,84  and  others.  In  other 
words,  some  of  the  investigators  just  mentioned,  as  well  as  Coste- 
Floret,85  Brooks, SG  Griffiths,87  Treboux,88  and  a  number  of  others, 


7i  Ann.  Agron.,  18,  p.  417;  E.  S.  E.,  4,  p.  435. 

72  Jour.  Agr.  Res.,  3,  no.  3,  p. 

73  Mass.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  161. 

-i  Jahresber.  Agr.  Chem.  N.  F.,  36,  p.  106. 

'5  Landw.  Versuchs.  Stat.,  2,  p.  73. 

7«  Jour.  Roy.  Agr.  Soe.  Eng.,  2d  ser.,  1,  p.  113. 

77  Ztschr.  Pflanzenkrank,  11,  p.  31;   see  also  Jahresber.  Agr.  Chem.,  43, 
352. 

78  Centbl.  Agr.  Chem.,  2,  p.  125. 

79  N.  J.  Sta.,  Ann.  Rept.,  p.  321,  1890. 
so  Ky.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  17. 

si  Jour,  fiir  Landw.,  40,  p.   19. 

82  Ann.  Agron.,  18,  p.  417. 

saCompt.  Rend.,  etc.,  117,  p.  1105. 

s-i  Ann.  Agron.,  22,  p.  20. 

ss  Prog.  Agr.  et  Vit.,  26,  pp.  434,  463,  496. 

so  Mass.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Ann.  Rept.,  p.  42,  1896. 

87  Chem.  News.,  50,  p.   167. 

ss  Flora,  92,  p.  59. 


1917]  Lipman- GerioTce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  543 

have  noted  very  definite  stimulation  of  plants  by  FeS04  in  soil 
cultures.  In  addition  to  these  direct  results  on  the  stimulation 
of  plants,  moreover,  may  be  mentioned  the  numerous  cases  of 
stimulation  of  plants  induced  by  spraying  the  leaves  with  solu- 
tions of  FeS04  either  for  destroying  ever-present  weeds  in  crops 
or  for  overcoming  certain  diseases  like  chlorosis.  These  cases 
are  too  numerous  to  mention  here,  but  are  well  reviewed  in  the 
bibliography  prepared  by  Horton,  which  is  referred  to  above. 
As  the  discussion  of  our  results  has  shown,  we  are  in  accord  with 
the  idea  of  the  stimulating  powers  of  FeS04  even  if  used  in  rela- 
tively large  concentrations  in  soils  so  far  as  the  first  two  succes- 
sive crops  on  the  treated  soil  are  concerned.  In  the  third  crop 
also,  marked  stimulation  is  obtained,  but  only  in  the  higher 
concentrations,  which  in  the  second  crop  were  toxic.  This 
circumstance  will  be  critically  considered  below. 

Lead  Sulfate 
The  literature  dealing  with  the  subject  of  the  effect  of  PbS04 
or  lead  in  any  form  on  plant  growth  is  very  meager.  That  which 
is  extant  deals  more  specifically  with  the  effect  of  lead  sprays  on 
foliage  and  fruit  of  trees  than  on  the  actual  growth  of  trees, 
in  which  we  are  interested  here.  In  the  case  of  solution  cultures 
we  have  found  but  two  papers,  and  both  of  these  testify  to  the 
stimulating  action  of  Pb(N03),  in  dilute  solutions.  We  refer 
to  the  investigations  of  Jensen89  and  Stoklasa.90  In  greater  con- 
centration the  Pb(N03)2  was  of  course  found  to  be  toxic  in  the 
solution  cultures.  The  same  investigators  also  obtained  marked 
manifestation  of  stimulation  of  plants  in  solid  substrata  due  to 
lead.  Jensen  obtained  such  in  quartz-sand  cultures,  in  which 
greater  concentrations  were  found  stimulating  than  in  solution 
cultures.  Stoklasa  confirmed  the  results  of  the  solution  cultures 
by  field  trials  reported  in  the  paper  above  cited,  and  also  in 
other  experiments91  with  sugar  beets,  oats,  corn,  and  other  crops. 
Voelcker92  also  found  lead  to  be  stimulating  to  wheat.     When 


89  Bot.  Gaz.,  43,  p.  11. 

soCompt.  Rend.  Acad.  Sci.   (Paris),  156,  p.  153. 
9i  Zuckerriibenbau,  18,  p.  193 ;  E.  S.  R.,  26,  p.  225. 
92  Jour.  Roy.  Agr.  Soc.  Eng.,  73,  ent.  series,  1912. 


544        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

our  data  for  PbS04  in  greenhouse  soil  are  reviewed  in  the  light 
of  the  foregoing,  they  are  found  to  be  in  accord  with  those  of 
Voeleker  so  far  as  the  second  and  third  crops  of  barley  are  con- 
cerned. At  some  concentrations  in  both  of  those  series,  PbS04 
acted  as  a  stimulant  to  barley  and  often  at  very  large  or  at  the 
larger  concentrations  used.  Our  results,  however,  are  entirely  at 
variance  with  those  of  Jensen  and  Stoklasa  in  so  far  as  the  first 
crop  is  concerned.  In  that  series  we  noted  nothing  but  evidences 
of  marked  toxicity  of  the  PbS04,  with  the  accompanying  effects 
on  the  barley  plants  which  are  described. 

Potash  Alum 

No  literature  has  been  found  on  the  effects  on  plants  of 
potash  alum  in  soil.  The  discussion  set  forth  above  giving  our 
results  with  that  material  will  therefore  have  to  suffice. 

Manganese 

With  the  possible  exception  of  copper,  manganese  and  its 
effects  on  plants  have  received  more  attention  at  the  hands  of 
plant  physiologists  and  students  of  soils  than  any  other  element 
here  under  consideration.  Despite  that  fact,  there  would  appear 
to  be  as  much  contradiction  in  results  obtained  in  this  case  as  in 
those  of  the  other  elements  above  studied.  We  find  reports  of 
toxicity  of  manganese  in  solution  cultures  in  the  publications 
of  Aso,93  Loew  and  Sawa,'H  and  Brenchley.'1"'  On  the  other  hand, 
the  results  of  the  same  authors  also  give  evidence  of  the  stimu- 
lating effects  of  manganese  at  certain  concentrations.  Miss 
Brenchley  even  hints  at  the  possibility  of  the  existence,  simul- 
taneously, of  a  toxic  and  stimulating  effect  on  the  part  of  man- 
ganese and  claims  that  either  effect  may  show  predominance, 
depending  on  the  concentration  of  the  salt  employed. 

On  the  toxic  action  of  manganese  to  plants  in  solid  substrata, 
principally    in    soils,    we    have    the    reports    of    experiments    of 


as  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  5,  p.  177. 

'■>*  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  5,  p.  161. 

95  Inorganic  plant  poisons  and  stimulants,  Cambridge,  1914. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericlce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  545 

Namba,98  Voeleker,97  Kelley,08  and  Guthrie  and  Cohen.""  As 
opposed  to  these,  however,  we  have  numerous  eases  on  record 
of  the  stimulating'  effects  of  manganese  to  plants  grown  in  soil, 
and  even  the  work  of  the  investigators  last  named  is  by  no  means 
to  be  considered  as  absolute  evidence  against  such  action  of  man- 
ganese, since  the  toxic  action  observed  was  in  some  cases  very 
slight,  and  some  of  the  concentrations  involved  were  so  un- 
usually high  as  to  leave  little  expectation  of  anything  but 
toxicity  of  manganese  for  the  plants  tested.  Among  the  in- 
vestigators referred  to  who  have  furnished  evidence  of  the 
stimulating  effects  of  manganese,  may  be  mentioned  Voeleker,100 
Bertrand,101  Roxas,102  Loew  and  Sawa,103  Nagaoka,104  Loew  and 
Honda,10"'  Fukutoma,100  Namba,107  Uchiyama,108  Takeuchi,109 
Feilitzen,110  Strampelli,111  and  Lipman  and  Wilson.112  While  in 
this  review  we  have  omitted  a  number  of  the  investigations  bear- 
ing on  the  subject,  enough  have  been  given  to  indicate  clearly 
the  trend  of  the  evidence  in  hand.  Fuller  bibliographies  may 
be  obtained  in  the  excellent  reviews  of  the  literature  given  by 
Brenchley113  and  by  Kelley.114 

Comparing  the  results  of  other  investigators  with  ours,  some 
interesting  differences,  as  well  as  similarities,  between  them  be- 
come evident.  For  example,  we  are  in  accord  with  most  of  the 
investigations  above  reviewed  as  favoring  the  existence  of  stimu- 


96  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  7,  p.  635. 

97  Jour.  Roy.  Agr.  Soc.  Eng.,  64,  p.  348. 

98  Jour.  Ind.  Eng.  Chern.,  1,  p.  533. 

99  Agr.  Gaz.  N.  S.  Wales,  21,  p.  219. 

io«  Jour.  Roy.  Agr.  Soc.  Eng.,  44,  p.  348. 
ioi  Compt.  Rend.,  etc.,  124,  p.  1032. 

102  Philippine  Agr.  and  Forester,  1,  p.  89. 

103  Flora,  91,  p.  264. 

ioi  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  5,  p.  467  ;  6,  p.  135. 

105  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  p.  6.  125. 

iogBuII.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  6,  p.  137. 

10?  Bull.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  7,  p.  635. 

los  Bull.  Imp.  Cent.  Agrie.  Exp.  Sta.,  Japan,  1,  p.  37. 

i"9  Jour.  Col.  Agr.,  Tokyo  Imp.  Univ.,  1,  p.  207. 

no  Jour,  fiir  Lanciw.,  55,  p.  289. 

in  6°  Cong.  Internat.  Chem.  Appl.  Roma,  4,  p.  14. 

112  Bot.  Gaz.,  55,  p.  409. 

us  Inorganic  plant  poisons  and  stimulants,  Cambridge,   1914. 

in  Hawaii  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  no.  26. 


546       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Scie7ices    [Vol.  1 

lation  by  manganese  of  the  growth  of  barley  so  far  as  the  first 
crop  on  the  soil  in  question  is  concerned.  In  the  case  of  the 
second  crop,  however,  a  depression  in  yield  of  considerable  mag- 
nitude is  induced  by  MnS04  and  a  stimulation  produced  by 
MnCl,  in  the  higher  concentrations  of  the  salt,  while  the  lower 
ones  depress  the  yield  like  MnS04.  In  the  third  crop,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  there  is  a  practical  disappearance  of  all 
toxic  effects  in  both  of  the  manganese  series  which  we  had  under 
observation,  and  taking  the  place  of  the  former  toxic  effects  we 
find  marked  stimulating  effects.  The  indication  is  therefore  that 
in  general  our  results  are  in  accord  with  those  of  the  investi- 
gators cited  above  who  attributed  to  manganese  stimulating 
effects  for  plants. 

ADDITIONAL  INVESTIGATIONS 

Nitrification 
Earlier  experiments  by  P.  S.  Burgess"  •  and  the  senior  author 
had  demonstrated  the  stimulating  effects  of  CuS04,  FeS04, 
ZnS04,  and  PbS04  on  nitrification  in  soils.  We  were  therefore 
led  to  wonder  whether  much,  if  not  all,  of  the  stimulation  ex- 
erted on  the  higher  plants  by  most  of  the  salts  in  the  first  crop 
was  due  to  the  increase  in  the  available  supply  of  nitrogen  there 
through  the  effects  of  the  salts.  Accordingly,  tests  of  the  nitrify- 
ing powers  of  the  soils  in  a  number  of  the  pots  in  every  series 
were  made  by  the  usual  laboratory  methods  employed  for  such 
purposes.  Dried-blood  nitrogen  was  used  as  the  nitrifiable 
material  at  the  rate  of  1  per  cent  of  the  dry  weight  of  the  green- 
house soil.  Lack  of  space  forbids  the  presentation  here  of  the 
large  amount  of  data  collected  on  the  subject  now  under  con- 
sideration. We  may,  however,  refer  to  the  striking  features 
thereof,  owing  to  their  undoubted  connection  with  the  cause  or 
causes  of  the  stimulating  effects  above  noted.  In  the  second  crop 
of  the  copper  series  in  the  greenhouse  soil  the  nitrifying  power 
was  from  10  per  cent  to  50  per  cent  greater  in  the  "coppered" 
than  in  the  "uncoppered"  soil.     In  the  third  crop,  which,  it 


us  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Agr.  Sci.,  1,  p.  127. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericlce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  547 

will  be  remembered,  was  grown  one  year  after  the  second  and  last 
copper  application  had  been  made,  the  increases  in  the  nitrifying 
powers  of  the  treated  soils  were  from  33  per  cent  to  100  per  cent 
greater  than  in  the  control  soils  receiving  no  copper.  In  a  gen- 
eral way  the  highest  concentrations  of  CuS04  gave  the  largest 
increases  in  nitrifying  power  in  the  second  crop,  but  in  the  third 
crop  there  was  more  or  less  irregularity  in  that  regard  and  the 
smaller  concentrations  appeared  to  be  as  effective  as  the  larger. 
In  the  case  of  the  zinc  series,  determinations  of  the  nitrifying 
powers  of  the  different  soils  were  made  after  the  third  crop  only. 
In  that  case  also,  the  nitrifying  power  was  increased  by  appli- 
cations of  ZnS04  equivalent  to  200,  600,  and  1000  p.  p.  m.  The 
increases,  however,  were  much  smaller  than  in  the  case  of  the 
CuS04  and  varied  from  3  per  cent  to  16  per  cent  at  the  different 
concentrations,  the  most  favorable  concentration  being  600  p. 
p.  m.  An  important  difference  exists  between  the  CuS04  and 
the  ZnS04  series  in  that  all  the  concentrations  of  the  former 
which  were  employed  increased  the  nitrifying  powers  of  the 
soil  in  the  third  crop  to  some  extent,  while  only  the  concentra- 
tions just  given  were  instrumental  in  imparting  such  a  stimulus 
in  the  case  of  the  latter  salt.  Iron  behaved  very  similarly  to  zinc 
in  most  respects  so  far  as  the  soil's  nitrifying  powers  were  con- 
cerned, and  0.2  per  cent,  0.4  per  cent,  0.6  per  cent,  and  0.8  per 
cent  were  tbe  range  of  concentration  of  FeS04  corresponding 
to  those  named  for  ZnS04  above.  One  difference  between  iron 
and  zinc  in  their  influences  on  nitrification  in  the  greenhouse 
soil  is  that  the  former  does  not  seem  to  have  been  appreciably 
toxic  in  any  concentration,  even  though  as  much  as  2  per  cent 
FeS04  was  employed,  whereas  the  latter,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  markedly  depressed  the  soil's  nitrifying  power  when  used 
in  excess  of  0.1  per  cent  of  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil.  Like 
ZnS04  and  FeS04,  PbS04  was  tested  as  to  its  effect  on  nitrifica- 
tion after  the  third  crop  only.  Under  those  conditions  it  gave, 
however,  very  different  resints  from  the  other  salts,  since  no 
stimulation  to  nitrification  was  noted  at  all,  no  matter  what 
amounts  of  PbS04  were  employed.  On  the  other  hand,  while 
PbS04  was  throughout  slightly  toxic  to  nitrification  under  the 


548        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

conditions  named,  the  toxicity  seemed  to  be  about  the  same  with 
the  larger  as  with  the  smaller  concentrations  of  PbS04  employed. 

The  manganese  salts  were  tested  in  the  first  crop  only,  in 
connection  with  their  powers  to  affect  nitrification.  The  follow- 
ing were  the  results :  MnS04  was  not  toxic  under  the  conditions 
named  in  any  of  the  concentrations  in  which  it  was  employed,  0.6 
per  cent  being  the  highest.  It  appeared  to  be  very  slightly  stim- 
ulating at  all  concentrations.  In  the  case  of  MnCl,  we  find 
marked  toxicity  to  nitrification  at  concentrations  in  excess  of  0.4 
per  cent,  and  very  distinctly  toxic  effects  at  concentrations 
in  excess  of  0.15  per  cent.  On  the  other  hand,  we  also  note 
that  nitrification  was  stimulated  by  the  following  concentra- 
tions: 0.05  per  cent,  0.1  per  cent,  and  0.15  per  cent.  The  stimu- 
lation was  very  marked  only  in  the  case  of  the  latter  two  con- 
centrations and  was  very  much  in  excess  of  that  induced  by 
MnS04  at  any  concentration. 

The  nitrifying  powers  of  the  Oakley  blow  sand  employed  in 
one  copper  series,  which  is  described  above,  were  also  deter- 
mined. Marked  stimulation  to  the  nitrifying  power  of  the  soil 
was  noted  at  concentrations  of  CuS04  equivalent  to  100  p.  p.  m., 
200  p.  p.  m.,  and  300  p.  p.  m.,  the  first  two  being  most  marked. 
Ammonium  sulfate  was  employed  as  the  nitrifiable  material. 
Amounts  of  CuS04  in  excess  of  300  p.  p.  m.  were  decidedly  toxic, 
and  very  little  or  no  nitrification  occurred  in  the  soil  containing 
more  than  700  p.  p.  m.  CuS04. 

While  there  is  considerable  discrepancy  in  the  correlation  of 
the  effects  of  the  different  salts  on  barley  growth  and  on  the 
nitrifying  bacteria,  there  appears  to  be  a  general  relation,  at 
least,  between  the  stimulating  effect  exerted  by  a  salt  on  the 
nitrifying  flora  and  its  effect  on  the  barley  plant.  The  serious 
irregularities  which  seem  to  militate  at  present  against  the 
definite  establishment  of  such  a  relationship  based  on  our  data 
can  undoubtedly  be  explained  on  the  basis  of  certain  factors 
like  the  residual  nitrate  supply  in  soils  and  the  differences  in  its 
distribution  throughout  the  soil  mass  which  of  course  must  exist. 
While  therefore  we  make  no  attempt  to  assert  that  the  stimu- 
lating effects  and  perhaps  the  toxic  effects  to  barley  exhibited  by 


1917]  Lipman—Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  549 

the  salts  here  under  discussion  are  to  be  accounted  for  by  their 
effects  on  the  nitrifying-  flora  and  hence  on  the  available  nitrogen 
supply,  we  do  believe  that  the  latter  is  one  of  the  few  important 
factors — perhaps  the  most  important — involved  in  the  problem 
of  explaining  stimulation  of  plants  in  soils  particularly,  and 
possibly  also,  to  some  extent,  the  toxicity  of  salts  in  soils.  That 
the  effects  of  the  salts  on  the  nitrifying  powers  of  the  soils  here 
studied  are  not  the  exclusive  cause  of  the  phenomena  above  dis- 
cussed, we  can  probably  believe  with  confidence.  The  total 
quantities  of  citric  acid-soluble  phosphoric  acid  and  potash  in 
soils  have  been  found  by  us  to  be  augmented  through  the  action 
of  the  metallic  sulfates  in  question,  and  we  are  also  aware  of 
the  possible  inhibiting  effects  of  those  salts  for  certain  factors 
which  may  be  inimical  to  the  proper  development  of  the  soil 
bacteria. 

In  addition,  there  can  be  no  question  about  the  profundity 
of  the  changes  in  the  soil's  physical  condition  induced  by  any 
metallic  sulfate  and  about  the  effects  which  follow  in  its  wake. 
Most  notable  of  all  facts  in  that  connection  is  the  fluffy  and 
pulverulent  condition  of  the  soils  treated  with  ferrous  sulfate, 
due  undoubtedly  to  the  formation  of  hydrated  ferric  oxide  and 
other  similar  compounds.  Special  studies  (unpublished)  carried 
out  by  Mr.  H.  H.  Coolidge  on  the  soils  of  the  ferrous-sulfate 
series,  showed  that  the  treatment  of  the  soil  reduced  its  power 
to  raise  water  to  a  certain  point,  while  at  first  allowing  it  to  raise 
it  faster;  that  the  hygroscopicity  of  the  soil  was  reduced;  that 
its  total  water-holding  power  and  its  water-retentiveness  were 
diminished;  that  its  percolation  power  was  increased;  that  its 
moisture-equivalent  was  diminished.  Mr.  Coolidge  also  found 
that,  contrary  to  the  effects  of  CuS04  and  some  of  the  other 
sulfates,  the  soil's  water-soluble  phosphorus  and  potassium  were 
very  much  reduced  in  quantity  by  treatment  with  FeS04.  Dif- 
ferent and  numerous  though  these  effects  be,  there  can  be  little 
question  that  they  must  influence,  to  some  degree  at  least,  the 
soil's  nitrifying  power.  A  further  discussion  of  this  phase  of 
the  problem  is,  however,  impossible  at  this  time  and  must  await 
consideration  in  connection  with  some  of  our  other  studies. 


550        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 


Nitrogen  Content  of  the  Grain 

It  appeared  of  interest,  in  view  of  the  foregoing,  to  determine 
to  what  extent  the  soil's  nitrate  content,  which  was  high  through- 
out, had  influenced  the  nitrogen  content  of  the  dry  matter.  We 
therefore  determined  the  nitrogen  content  of  the  grain  harvested 
in  a  number  of  the  series  so  as  to  obtain  some  idea  of  the  direc- 
tion taken  by  the  effects  of  the  nitrates,  if  any  were  exerted.  As 
a  result  of  these  analyses  it  was  found  that  in  the  second  crop 
of  the  copper  series  the  nitrogen  content  of  the  grain  was  in  the 
absolute  from  0.14  per  cent  to  0.57  per  cent  higher  in  the  case 
of  that  grown  on  the  "coppered"  soil  than  in  that  grown  on  the 
control  soils.  In  the  third  crop  of  the  copper  series  the  nitrogen 
content  was  from  0.05  per  cent  to  0.38  per  cent  higher  in  the 
grain  from  the  treated  soils  than  in  that  from  the  untreated 
soils.  In  the  case  of  the  second  crop  of  the  zinc  series,  the 
nitrogen  content  of  the  grain  was  from  0.06  per  cent  to  0.64  per 
cent  higher  in  the  grain  of  the  treated  than  in  that  of  the 
untreated  soils.  In  the  third  crop  of  the  zinc  series,  the  corre- 
sponding figures  ranged  from  nothing  in  one  case,  in  which  the 
lowest  concentration  of  ZnS04  was  used,  to  0.42  per  cent.  Simi- 
larly in  the  case  of  the  iron  series,  the  range  was  from  nothing 
to  0.68  per  cent  in  the  second  crop,  and  from  0.22  per  cent  to 
0.50  in  the  third  crop.  No  determinations  were  made  in  the 
case  of  the  lead  series,  but  analyses  were  carried  out  in  the  case 
of  the  second  crop  of  the  potash  alum  series  which  indicated  that 
the  grain  of  the  treated  soils  was  in  most  cases  only  very  slightly 
richer  in  nitrogen  than  that  from  the  untreated  soils,  and  that 
the  maximum  increase  did  not  surpass  0.09  per  cent. 

On  the  whole,  and  leaving  the  potash  alum  out  of  consider- 
ation, it  seems  that  one  of  the  results  of  stimulation  of  the 
barley  plant  by  the  metallic  sulfates  in  question  was  the  increase 
in  the  nitrogen  content  of  the  grain.  At  all  concentrations  of 
all  the  salts  tested,  with  only  one  or  two  exceptions,  the  grain 
grown  on  the  treated  soils  was  richer  in  nitrogen  than  that  on 
the  untreated  soils.  That  this  fact  should  be  referable  primarily 
to  the  increased  vigor  of  the  nitrate  formation  in  the  treated 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  551 

soils  induced  by  the  presence  of  the  salts  appears  to  the  writers 
rational  and  justifiable.  However  that  may  be,  there  can  be 
no  question  that  even  in  the  second  and  third  crops  on  the  soil 
under  examination  the  nitrogen  content  of  the  grain  shows  its 
superiority  in  the  case  of  the  treated  soils  as  against  the  un- 
treated soils.  If  this  should  prove  true  on  soils  in  general,  and 
there  is  strong  likelihood  that  it  will,  should  it  not  offer  us  a 
method  for  increasing  the  nitrogen  content  of  our  grain,  a  prob- 
lem which  has  for  some  time  been  agitating  agronomists  and 
flour  producers  in  California?  While,  as  has  been  indicated  by 
other  investigators,  a  high  nitrogen  content  of  grain  may  not 
necessarily  imply  a  high  gluten  content  of  the  flour,  the  latter 
being  the  consummation  anxiously  sought,  it  is  at  least  likely 
that  the  generally  higher  nitrogen  content  of  grain  will  also 
bring  with  it  a  higher  gluten  content.  Since,  moreover,  our 
investigations  indicate  that  small  quantities  of  the  metallic  salts 
are  as  effective  in  inducing  the  enrichment  of  grain  in  nitrogen 
as  the  larger  quantities,  it  is  further  possible  that  the  means 
suggested  of  raising  the  gluten  content  of  grain  may  prove  to 
be  a  very  inexpensive  one. 

Absorption  of  Metals  by  Soil  and  Plant 

In  discussing  such  problems  as  the  one  which  forms  the 
subject  here,  the  technical  chemist  will  frequently  ask  to  what 
extent  plants  will  absorb  such  metals  as  have  been  studied  by 
us.  The  literature  on  that  topic  is  so  rich  in  evidence  that  metals 
are  readily  absorbed,  and  in  considerable  quantity,  by  the  plant 
that  we  did  not  deem  it  desirable  to  go  at  length  into  such  an 
investigation  with  our  harvested  barley  plants  as  a  basis.  We 
did,  however,  make  analyses  of  a  number  of  plants  from  pots 
receiving  different  treatments  and  also  of  the  soils  in  some  of 
the  pots.  We  are  therefore  in  a  position  to  answer  partly  on 
the  basis  of  our  own  data,  the  question  above  raised.  On  the 
subject  of  the  absorption  of  metals  by  plants,  the  reader  is 
referred    for    full    and    interesting    discussions    to    Czapek,116 


> 


lie  Biochemie  der  Pflanzen,  Jena,  1905. 


552        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

Pfeffer,117  Midler,11*  Lehmann,119  and  Brenehley.120  In  our 
analyses  both  grain  and  straw  were  examined,  and  copper  and 
zinc  only  were  determined.  These  were  both  determined  electro- 
lytically.  Unlike  Vedrodi,121  we  could  find  nothing  more  than 
traces  of  copper  or  zinc  in  the  grain,  but  succeeded  easily  in 
obtaining  definite  quantities  of  those  metals  in  the  straw  from 
some  of  the  pots.  In  the  first  crop,  from  thirty-six  to  forty-three 
grams  of  straw  were  taken  for  analysis  for  copper,  and,  after 
ashing,  the  mineral  residue  was  prepared  for  analysis  for  copper 
by  the  method  above  mentioned,  straw  from  the  pots  receiving 
100,  800,  1100,  and  1200  p.  p.  m.  CuS04  being  employed.  In  the 
first  case,  the  percentage  of  copper  in  the  straw  varied  from 
nothing  to  0.0006  per  cent.  In  the  second  case,  the  percentage 
of  copper  was  0.0002.  In  the  third  case,  it  was  0.0033  per  cent, 
and  in  the  fourth  case,  0.0044  per  cent. 

In  the  pots  receiving  ZnS04,  there  were  chosen  for  analysis 
the  straw  produced  in  those  receiving  100,  300,  500,  1000,  1100, 
1200,  1300,  and  1600  p.  p.  m.  In  the  first  case,  the  analysis 
showed  the  presence  of  zinc  to  the  extent  of  0.00036  per  cent ; 
in  the  second,  0.0008  per  cent;  in  the  third,  0.003  per  cent; 
in  the  fourth,  0.017  per  cent ;  in  the  fifth,  0.013  per  cent ;  in 
the  sixth,  0.013  per  cent ;  in  the  seventh,  0.01  per  cent ;  and 
in  the  eighth,  0.012  per  cent.  In  the  cases  of  both  zinc  and 
copper  the  percentage  of  the  metals  absorbed  by  the  barley 
plant  was  smaller  than  that  reported  as  being  absorbed  by 
the  plants  studied  by  other  investigators  whose  work  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  literature  last  cited.  In  general,  it  seems  that 
up  to  a  certain  point  increasing  quantities  of  the  metals  added 
to  the  soil  induce  larger  absorptions  of  metal  by  the  plant,  but 
beyond  that  point  the  addition  of  metals  to  the  soil  appears  to 
be  without  effect  in  inducing  further  absorption.  Tins  seems  to 
be  particularly  true  in  the  case  of  the  zinc.  We  do  not  desire, 
however,  to  draw  any  conclusions  from  the  relatively  meager 
data  which  we  have  gathered  on  the  subject  in  question  under 


117  Pflanzenphysiologie,  Leipzig,  1897  and  1901. 

us  Ztschr.  Pflanzenkrank.,  4,  p.  142. 

no  Arch.  Hyg.,  27,  p.  1. 

120  Inorganic  plant  poisons  and  stimulants,  Cambridge,   1914. 

i2i  Cliem.  Ztg.,  20,  p.  399. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth,  553 

the  conditions  here  discussed.  Since  it  is  rare  in  nature  that 
more  than  the  lowest  concentrations  of  copper  and  zinc  here 
studied  ever  occur  in  soils  suited  to  crop  production,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  danger  in  the  use  by  man  and  animals  of  plants 
absorbing  copper  is  not  a  serious  one,  for  with  small  quantities 
of  copper  and  zinc  present  in  the  soil,  very  small  quantities  only 
are  absorbed  by  the  plant.  It  must  be  added  here,  morever,  that 
we  employed  easily  water-soluble  salts,  whereas  in  nature  the 
compounds  of  the  metais  found  are  principally  those  of  a  very 
insoluble  nature.  The  latter  circumstance  would  perforce  make 
impossible  any  large  concentration  of  any  metal  in  the  soil  solu- 
tion, and  hence  only  small  quantities  could  be  absorbed  by  plants. 

We  were  interested  also  in  obtaining  an  inkling  as  to  the 
fate  of  the  copper  and  zinc  added  to  the  soil  after  three  seasons 
of  plant  growth  thereon.  Accordingly,  several  soils  were  chosen 
for  examination.  Pots  receiving  600,  1800,  2000,  and  3000  p.  p. 
m.  CuS04  gave  the  following  results :  In  the  first  case  all  the 
copper  added  was  recovered.  In  the  second  case  1750  p.  p.  m., 
instead  of  1800,  were  recovered.  In  the  third  case  all  the  cop- 
per was  recovered,  and  in  the  fourth  case  2875  p.  p.  m.  were 
recovered,  instead  of  3000  p.  p.  m. 

In  the  case  of  zinc  the  pots  receiving  800,  1700,  and  2000 
p.  p.  m.  ZnS04  were  studied.  In  the  first  case  750  p.  p.  m.  were 
recovered.  In  the  second  case  1650  p.  p.  m.  were  recovered  in 
one  soil,  and  1500  p.  p.  m.  in  another  soil.  In  the  third  case  only 
1250  p.  p.  m.  were  recovered. 

These  data  indicate  that  in  the  case  of  copper,  at  least,  the 
soil  clings  tenaciously  to  the  metal ;  and  most  of  it,  or  nearly  all 
of  it,  can  be  recovered  from  the  soil  even  three  seasons  after  it 
has  been  incorporated  therewith,  and  three  crops  of  barley 
grown  in  the  interim.  With  zinc,  there  do  appear  to  be  losses. 
These  may  perhaps  be  explained  in  part  by  the  larger  amounts 
of  zinc  than  copper  absorbed  by  plants,  and  by  the  lesser  accu- 
racy of  the  method  for  its  determination  as  compared  with  that 
employed  for  copper.  Twenty-gram  samples  of  soil  were  em- 
ployed in  all  cases  for  obtaining  the  extracts  which  were  an- 
alyzed, and  it  is  therefore  believed  that  the  error  involved  in 
the  analyses  could  not  have  been  very  large. 


554       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 


GENERAL  AND  PRACTICAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

The  practical  as  much  as  the  theoretical  point  of  view  in- 
spired these  investigations.  In  a  time  such  as  this,  when  the 
smelter  question  is  of  great  significance  in  agricultural  districts 
and  when  outcries  against  the  damage  caused  by  both  smelter 
fumes  and  solid  smelter  wastes  are  most  insistent,  it  appeared 
to  us  that  the  moment  had  arrived  for  wholly  disinterested  in- 
vestigators to  examine  into  it.  Our  experiments  as  described 
in  this  paper  have  dealt,  in  the  main,  with  the  effects  on  barley 
growth  in  three  successive  crops  of  the  metals  which  would  be 
likely  to  be  deposited  in  the  vicinity  of  smelters  and  gradually 
washed  down  into  sources  of  irrigation  water  for  the  territory 
lying  below  the  smelter  plants.  Despite  the  fact  that  we  have 
used  much  more  soluble  forms  of  the  so-called  toxic  salts  than 
are  likely  to  occur  under  the  conditions  just  described,  and  de- 
spite the  fact  that  we  have  employed  both  large  and  small 
amounts  of  these  salts,  we  are  unable  to  read  into  our  results 
any  serious  danger  to  agriculture  from  the  solids  of  smelter 
wastes  as  they  may  be  transported  to  cropped  lands  by  irrigation 
water.  In  making  this  statement  we  are  not  unmindful  that 
very  small  areas  occur122  near  the  smelter  plants  in  which  the 
tailings  may  be  carried  down  by  streams  and  deposited  on  land 
in  large  quantities.  These  may,  for  example,  carry  enough  of 
the  toxic  heavy  metals  to  render  land  poor  in  producing  capac- 
ity. But  in  the  first  place  the  most  prejudiced  persons  will  not 
claim  that  such  affected  areas  of  agricultural  land  are  more  than 
negligible  quantities  when  the  question  is  considered  in  the 
large ;  in  the  second  place,  even  under  conditions  so  extreme, 
none  but  the  most  biased  will  deny  that  proper  methods  of  man- 
agement can  be  made  to  render  innocuous  any  harmful  effects 
which  the  tailings  in  question  may  be  potentially  capable  of 
exerting.  These  methods  of  management  are  clearly  indicated 
and  include  the  impounding  of  water  carrying  tailings  or  the 
passage  of  stream  water  through  screens  which  will  separate  out 


is2  See  E.  H.  Forbes,  ' '  Certain  effects  under  irrigation  of  copper  com- 
pounds upon  crops,"  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Agri.  Sei.,  1,  no.  12,  1917. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  555 

the  tailings,  and,  in  the  case  of  the  land  which  is  already  affected, 
the  use  of  organic  matter.  The  indications  of  our  experiments 
are  that  a  year  or  two  of  fallowing  will  usually  correct  the 
difficulty. 

We  are  therefore  obliged  to  reaffirm  the  position  taken  by 
Lipman  and  Wilson123  to  the  effect  that  there  seems  to  be  little 
danger  in  store  for  our  agricultural  lands  in  the  metallic  resi- 
dues which  are  deposited  by  smelters  in  their  vicinity  and  from 
their  idtimate  solution  in  small  degree  in  potential  irrigation 
water-supplies  which  may  be  subsequently  transported  to  farm 
lands.  On  the  contrary,  we  give  evidence  above  that  so  far 
from  being  toxic  to  barley  plants,  small  amounts  of  the  metals 
studied  may  be  distinctly  stimulating  to  them.  While  this  is 
more  strictly  true  in  the  case  of  some  metals  than  of  others,  it 
appears  none  the  less  to  be  so.  Moreover,  in  cases  in  which 
toxicity  is  effected  by  the  application  of  any  of  the  metallic  sul- 
fates named,  it  is  usually  very  slight,  even  when  large  quantities 
of  the  salts  are  employed.  While  we  have  experimented  in  this 
series  of  investigations  only  with  barley,  evidences  given  hy 
ourselves  and  by  others  who  are  above  cited,  indicate  that  a 
number  of  other  plants  behave  similarly  to  barley,  if  not  exactly 
like  it.  Prom  the  practical  standpoint,  therefore,  we  cannot  see 
that  any  other  conclusion  can  be  reached  than  that  we  may 
virtually  ignore  any  deleterious  effects  which  may  be  urged 
against  the  metals  of  smelter  wastes  which  are  here  discussed. 
We  use  the  word  ' '  practical ' '  here  advisedly,  because  if  solution 
instead  of  soil  cultures  were  taken  as  a  criterion,  our  standard 
of  judgment  would  not  be  practical.  Whatever  may  be  said 
about  soil  cultures,  one  must  admit  that  they  approximate  most 
closely  of  any  greenhouse  or  laboratory  methods  the  natural  con- 
ditions under  which  crops  grow.  We  cannot  see  that  any  other 
culture  than  one  which  at  least  offers  a  solid  substratum  to  the 
plant  may  be  regarded  as  valid  in  the  determination  of  whether 
or  not  salts  like  those  here  under  consideration  are,  under  the 
conditions  of  the  smelter  and  its  vicinity,  a  menace  to  plant 
growth. 


123  Bot.  Gaz..  55.  no.  6.  p.  409.  June.  1913. 


556        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

To  all  this,  however,  there  must  be  added  some  other  con- 
siderations. One  of  them  serves  to  qualify,  in  some  measure  at 
least,  the  remarks  made  above,  and  the  other  to  supplement  them. 
While  the  metals  studied  by  us  do  not  seem  to  have  given  evi- 
dence, under  the  conditions  of  our  experiment,  of  any  serious 
injury  to  barley,  a  non-metal,  arsenic,  has  given  marked  evidences 
of  toxicity  to  barley  under  similar  conditions.  Arsenic,  being 
found  frequently  in  conjunction  with  the  other  elements  in  the 
vicinity  of  smelters,  is  necessarily  a  subject  worthy  of  attention. 
Our  results  with  its  use  in  soil  cultures  are  not  yet  ready  to 
be  reported,  but  we  hope  sometime  in  the  near  future  to  publish 
them.  Suffice  it  to  say  now  that  such  compounds  of  arsenic  as 
arsenic  trisulfide  and  Paris  green  have  proved  to  be  extremely 
toxic  to  barley  in  both  heavy  and  light  soils,  while  lead  arsenate 
has  proved  to  be  only  slightly  toxic.  Whether  or  not  arsenic 
oxide,  which  is  the  form  to  be  expected  in  lands  in  the  vicinity 
of  smelters,  will  act  similarly  remains  to  be  shown  by  further 
experiments  which  are  now  being  planned  by  us. 

We  are  constrained  to  add  to  the  foregoing  that  we  have 
borne  in  mind  the  difference  in  the  effects  produced  on  a  toxic 
material  by  the  change  in  a  soil's  constitution.  Indeed,  our 
experiments  with  copper  in  three  widely  different  types  of  soil 
testify  to  that  fact;  and  while  we  have  found  marked  differences 
in  the  degrees  of  stimulation  and  toxicity  of  copper  in  the  differ- 
ent soil  types,  all  of  the  latter  appear  to  have  given  both  stimu- 
lation and  toxicity.  Even  in  the  sandy  soil  in  which  the  toxicity 
of  CuS04  became  manifest  at  the  lowest  concentration  for  any 
of  the  types  of  soil  studied,  as  much  as  0.03  per  cent  of  CuS04 
of  the  dry  weight  of  the  soil  still  acted  as  a  stimulant  to  barley. 
Considering  that  CuS04  is  an  easily  water-soluble  salt,  it  would 
be  reasonable  to  expect  that  such  compounds  as  Cu(OH),.CuCO;t, 
which  are  the  usual  forms  to  be  expected  in  soils  near  smelters, 
could  be  tolerated  by  plants  in  much  larger  quantities. 

If,  as  appears  to  us  reasonable,  we  should  be  able  to  accept 
the  data  above  offered  by  us,  at  least  as  tentative  evidence  that 
we  have  little  to  fear  from  the  solids  of  smelter  wastes  in  the 
contamination  of  our  irrigation  water-supply  and  therefore  in 


1917]  Liyman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  557 

injuring  large  areas  of  land,  we  have  another  interesting  propo- 
sition to  bring  forward.  L.  T.  Sharp  and  the  senior  author124 
have  already  reported  preliminary  pot  experiments  in  evidence 
of  the  fact  that  H2S04  exerts  a  remarkable  effect  on  alkali  soil 
with  the  result  of  changing  the  latter  from  an  unproductive  state 
to  a  productive  one.  The  probable  reasons  for  this  action  are 
discussed  in  the  paper  referred  to  above.  Suffice  it  to  say  here 
that  field  experiments  which  still  remain  unpublished  amply 
confirm  the  pot  experiments.  If  this  should  prove  to  be  a  more 
or  less  permanent  effect  on  alkali  soils  which  do  not  contain  too 
high  a  percentage  of  salts  (from  0.6  per  cent  to  0.8  per  cent), 
then  we  could  solve  the  other  and  really  serious  phase  of  the 
smelter  question,  namely,  the  smelter  gases.  Chemical  engineers 
of  note,  including  F.  G.  Cottrell  of  the  Bureau  of  Mines,  have 
often  stated  to  the  senior  author  that  the  chief  reason  that  S02 
fumes  from  the  smelters  are  not  made  into  H2S04  is  because 
there  would  be  no  use  for  such  tremendous  quantities  of  that 
acid.  If,  however,  we  should  be  able  to  apply  H2S04  to  many 
alkali  soils  with  good  effect  that  objection  would  vanish.  If, 
therefore,  the  smelters  will  only  produce  the  acid  cheaply 
enough,  as  they  now  seem  inclined  to  do,  we  shall  be  able  to 
banish  much  costly  litigation,  let  the  smelter  industry  develop 
untramelled,  give  the  smelter  companies  compensation  for  oxid- 
izing the  S02,  and  last  but  not  least,  put  large  acreages  of 
barren  land  into  good  crop-producing  condition. 

This  proposition  sounds  almost  chimerical,  but  much  thought 
and  work  on  it  have  convinced  us  that  it  is  well  justified  by 
facts,  and  we  believe  that  the  condition  just  described  will  speed- 
ily come  to  pass.  We  mention  the  S02  problem  here  only  in 
passing,  since  much  fuller  discussion  of  our  experiments  with 
H2S04  on  alkali  soils  is  to  appear  in  later  papers.  Suffice  it  to 
say,  that  we  believe  we  have  in  it  and  in  the  experiments  above 
discussed  strong  evidence  of  methods  for  controlling  the  smelter 
nuisance  without  injuring  the  industry  or  the  farmer,  and, 
besides,  much  evidence  on  the  true  effects  of  solids  of  smelter 
wastes  on  barley  grown  in  soils. 


i2i  Univ.  Cal.  Publ.  Agri.  ScL,  vol.  1,  p.  275. 


558       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

THEORETICAL  CONSIDERATIONS 
A  few  words  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  with  regard  to  the 
mechanism  of  the  action  of  the  different  salts  employed  in  our 
experiments,  be  such  action  in  the  direction  of  stimulation  or 
in  that  of  toxicity.  In  the  first  place,  the  salts  in  question  must 
exercise  some  effect  on  the  cell  of  the  root  itself  and,  through 
it,  on  the  whole  plant.  If  this  were  not  so,  we  should  not  obtain 
the  stimulating  as  well  as  the  toxic  effects  of  a  given  salt  in 
solution  cultures,  as  well  as  in  soil  cultures.  In  the  latter,  we 
do  of  course  obtain  more  definite  evidence  of  stimulation  than 
in  the  former,  and  for  that  reason  we  may  claim  with  some 
justice,  as  we  have  above,  that  stimulation  effects  are  chiefly 
attributable  to  some  influence,  not  always  the  same,  induced  by 
the  salt  on  the  soil,  rather  than  on  the  root  of  the  plant.  This 
does  not,  to  be  sure,  deny  the  existence  of  the  latter  effect  in  soil 
cultures  and  particularly  in  solution  cultures;  but  when  the 
most  marked  stimulation  occurs,  it  is  rarely  noted  in  the  latter. 
We  therefore  believe  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  we  are  dealing 
under  such  circumstances  with  an  effect  on  the  soil,  rather  than 
with  one  on  the  plant  root.  "What  such  salt  effects  on  the  soil 
may  be  like  are  explained  above.  It  is  not  easy,  however,  to 
explain  or  even  to  speculate  on  an  explanation  of  the  effect  of 
a  salt  directly  on  the  plant  root  in  the  direction  of  stimulation. 
We  have  no  unexceptionable  evidence  on  the  subject  of  com- 
pounds of  copper,  for  example,  with  albuminoid  material  of 
living  cells,  and  that  increases  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for 
observed  facts  of  stimulation.  It  is  nevertheless  possible  that 
stimulation  of  root  cells  by  copper  may  be  due  to  an  effect  of 
the  latter  in  decreasing  or  increasing  the  permeability  of  the  cell, 
or  perhaps  to  the  possible  small  content  of  iron  in  the  copper 
compounds  employed,  the  iron  acting  as  one  of  the  essential 
elements  to  cell  development.  Neither  of  these  speculations  at 
present  appears  to  have  value  other  than  that  of  inducing  fur- 
ther thought  and  discussion  on  the  subject.  So  far  as  the  toxic 
effects  of  salts  on  plants  in  solution  cultures  is  concerned,  noth- 
ing need  be  added  here  to  the  excellent  discussions  already  given 
by  Czapek  and  Pfeffer  which  are  cited  above,  and  by  Hober.125 
125  Physikalische  Chemie  der  Zelle  und  der  Gewebe,  Leipzig,  1914. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  559 

With  regard  to  stimulation  in  soil  cultures,  there  may  be 
added  here  something  which  is  not  mentioned  in  the  discussion 
above,  namely,  that  the  salts  of  the  heavy  metals  may  act  with 
respect  to  oxydases  as  Loew126  has  claimed  manganese  does, 
augmenting  their  activity  and  thus  preventing  the  accumulation 
of  toxic  materials  in  the  soil.  That  such  a  catalytic  effect  does 
exist  is,  however,  very  doubtful  in  the  light  of  present  evidence. 
That  other  forms  of  catalytic  effects  may  be  exerted  by  such 
salts  as  those  employed  in  our  experiments  is  at  least  not 
impossible. 

SUMMARY 

The  authors  have  been  carrying  on  a  series  of  investigations 
on  the  effects  of  CuS04,  ZnS04J  FeS04,  PbS04,  MnS04,  MnCL, 
KA1(S04)2.12  H20,  and  different  forms  of  arsenic  on  the  growth 
of  barley.  The  experiments  were  carried  out  in  paraffined  earth- 
enware pots  nine  inches  in  diameter,  greenhouse  soil  made  up 
from  clay  adobe  soil  and  barnyard  manure  being  used  prin- 
cipally. In  the  case  of  CuS04,  two  other  soils  were  used  in 
addition  to  the  greenhouse  soil,  namely,  the  Oakley  blow  sand 
and  the  Berkeley  clay  adobe.  With  the  greenhouse  soil  the 
experiment  continued  for  three  successive  crops  of  barley ;  with 
the  clay  abode  soil,  for  two  crops;  and  with  the  blow  sand  for 
only  one  crop.  The  results  of  these  experiments,  which  are  set 
forth  in  the  tables  and  discussion  above,  may  be  summarized  and 
their  significance  indicated  briefly  as  follows : 

1.  In  the  greenhouse  soil,  in  the  first  crop  CuS04  acts  as  a 
stimulant  throughout  from  concentrations  of  50  p.  p.  m.  to  600 
p.  p.  m.  inclusive.  When  the  roots  are  left  out  of  consideration, 
it  acts  as  a  stimulant  even  to  the  highest  concentration  employed, 
viz.,  1500  p.  p.  m. 

In  the  second  crop  CuS04  acts  as  a  stimulant  to  both  roots 
and  tops  up  to  and  including  1800  p.  p.  m.,  and  is  without  effect 
on  the  roots,  while  stimulating  to  tops  even  at  2800  p.  p.  m. 
Grain  production  is  stimulated  by  CuS04  in  the  second  crop 
practically  throughout  the  series. 


126  Flora,  91,  p.  264. 


560        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

In  the  third  crop  both  root  and  top  production  are  stimulated 
up  to  and  including  concentrations  of  CuS04  equivalent  to  2200 
p.  p.  m.    Grain  production  is  almost  similarly  stimulated. 

2.  In  the  clay  adobe  soil  in  the  first  crop  straw,  grain,  and 
root  production  are  all  stimulated  up  to  and  including  concen- 
trations of  CuS04  equivalent  to  800  p.  p.  m. 

In  the  second  crop  no  stimulation  takes  place  in  the  100  and 
200  p.  p.  m.  concentrations,  but  in  all  higher  concentrations,  at 
least  including  that  equivalent  to  900  p.  p.  m.  This  holds  for 
both  straw  and  root  production. 

3.  In  the  Oakley  blow  sand,  only  one  crop  being  grown, 
CuS04  stimulates  markedly  grain  production  and  slightly  straw 
and  root  production  at  concentrations  up  to  and  including  300 
p.  p.  m.  CuS04. 

4.  In  the  greenhouse  soil  in  the  ZnS04  series  the  first  crop 
is  stimulated  both  as  to  root  and  straw  yields  throughout  at 
concentrations  varying  from  100  p.  p.  m.  to  2000  p.  p.  m.  ZnS04. 

In  the  second  crop  stimulation  to  straw  and  root  yields  occurs 
at  200  p.  p.  m.  ZnS04,  and  marked  stimulation  to  root  yield 
without  effect  on  straw  yields  up  to  600  p.  p.  m.  ZnS04.  Beyond 
that  point  slight  toxicity  sets  in  and  is  maintained  almost 
uniformly  throughout. 

In  the  third  crop  neither  stimulation  nor  toxicity  is  apparent 
at  concentrations  of  200  p.  p.  m.  ZnS04,  but  concentrations  in 
excess  of  the  latter  are  distinctly  toxic. 

5.  In  the  greenhouse  soil  in  the  FeS04  series,  the  first  crop 
shows  the  stimulating  effects  of  PeS04  throughout  in  concentra- 
tions varying  from  0.1  per  cent  to  1  per  cent.  The  straw  yields 
are  increased  throughout  and  the  root  jdelcls  slightly  so  up  to 
and  including  the  concentration  0.7  per  cent  FeS04. 

In  the  second  crop  FeS04  stimulates  straw  production  in 
concentrations  varying  from  0.2  per  cent  to  1  per  cent  inclusive. 
Grain  production  is  only  slightly  and  irregularly  stimulated  at 
the  same  concentration.  Root  production  is  affected  similarly 
to  the  grain  production. 

In  the  third  crop  concentrations  from  1  per  cent  FeS04  up 
to  and  including  2  per  cent  are. markedly  stimulating  to  straw 
and  grain  yields  and  very  slightly  effective  in  both  directions  in 


1917]  Lipman-GericTce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  561 

regard  to  root  yields.  Smaller  concentrations  than  those  men- 
tioned slightly  depress  straw  and  root  production,  but  definitely 
stimulate  grain  production. 

6.  In  the  greenhouse  soil  in  the  PbS04  series,  first  crop,  the 
straw  production  is  depressed  by  about  one-third  the  total 
amount  produced  in  the  control.  The  depression  appears  to 
be  uniform  at  concentrations  of  from  200  p.  p.  m.  to  1.500  p.  p.  m. 
PbS04.  Likewise,  the  root  yields  are  depressed  by  even  a 
greater  figure  (about  60  per  cent),  and  again  almost  uniformly 
throughout. 

In  the  second  crop  the  straw  production  is  nowhere  depressed 
in  the  entire  series  and  is  stimulated  at  concentrations  of  from 
300  p.  p.  m.  to  600  p.  p.  m.  PbS04  as  well  as  at  scattering  con- 
centrations in  excess.  Root  production,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
slightly  depressed  throughout. 

In  the  third  crop  the  straw  production  is  markedly  stimu- 
lated at  concentrations  varying  from  1000  p.  p.  m.  to  2400 
p.  p.  m.  PbS04,  but  slightly  depressed  at  lower  concentrations. 
Grain  production  is  similarly  affected,  and  the  PbS04  remains 
without  effect  on  the  roots  within  the  same  limits  of  concen- 
tration. 

7.  In  the  greenhouse  soil  in  the  potash  alum  series  the  first 
crop  shows  stimulation  to  straw  yields  at  all  concentrations 
varying  from  applications  of  300  pounds  to  2000  pounds  K20 
per  acre.  Root  yields  are  stimulated  at  the  lowest  concentration 
named,  but  scarcely  at  all  in  the  others. 

In  the  second  crop  the  straw  yields  are  again  stimulated  by 
the  doubling  of  the  potash  alum  application  throughout  the 
series.  Relatively  the  stimulation  is  much  greater  than  in  the 
first  crop.  Grain  production  and  root  production  are  also  mark- 
edly stimulated,  the  former  at  the  smaller  applications  of  potash 
alum  and  in  other  isolated  instances,  and  the  latter  throughout. 

In  the  third  crop  the  straw  yield  is  markedly  depressed 
throughout.  The  grain  yields  are  slightly  stimulated  in  some 
cases,  and  in  the  balance  remain  unaffected.  The  root  yields  are 
depressed  similarly  to  the  straw  yields. 

8.  In  the  greenhouse  soil  in  the  MnS04  series  the  first  crop 
is  stimulated  in  regard  to  straw  yields  at  all  concentrations  be- 


562       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences   [Vol.  1 

tween  500  p.  p.  m.  and  3000  p.  p.  m.  MnS04,  but  most  markedly 
at  1500  p.  p.  m.  The  root  yields  are  also  markedly  stimulated, 
but  only  at  concentrations  up  to  and  including  1500  p.  p.  m. 
Beyond  that  concentration,  root  yields  are  more  or  less  reduced. 

In  the  second  crop  the  straw  yields  are  stimulated  at  from 
4000  p.  p.  m.  to  6000  p.  p.  m.  MnS04,  but  markedly  depressed  at 
concentrations  below  4000  p.  p.  m.  The  "rain  yields  are  about 
equally  depressed  throughout,  but  not  markedly.  The  root 
yields  are  depressed  throughout  the  series  rather  markedly,  the 
smallest  depression  occurring  a1  concentrations  of  2000  and 
2500  p.  p.  m.  MnS04. 

In  the  third  crop  a  stimulation  is  induced  toward  the  pro- 
duction of  straw,  grain,  and  roots,  the  medium  concentrations 
being  most  effective.  Little  or  no  evidence  of  toxic  effects  of 
MnS04  was  observed. 

9.  In  the  greenhouse  soil  in  the  MnCl,  series  the  first  crop  is 
markedly  stimulated  in  si  raw  production  at  concentrations  vary- 
ing from  500  to  1500  p.  p.  m.  MnCL.  Beyond  the  latter  concen- 
tration, MnCl2  becomes  more  and  mure  acutely  toxic,  until 
almost  no  straw  is  produced  at  6000  p.  p.  in.  MnCL.  Root 
production  is  affected  similarly  to  straw  production,  in  a  general 
way. 

In  the  second  erop  straw  production  is  stimulated  throughout 
except  at  the  two  lowest  concentrations — 500  and  1000  p.  p.  m. 
respectively.  Grain  yields,  however,  are  depressed  almost 
throughout.  The  depression  is  relatively  slighl  (there  being 
one  case  of  stimulation)  at  concentrations  varying  from  500 
p.  p.m.  to  3000  p.  p.  m.  Above  the  latter  concentration,  the 
MnCL  is  markedly  toxic  to  grain  production.  Root  production 
is  markedly  depressed  throughout. 

Like  MnS04,  MnCL  exerts  a  stimulating  effect  on  the  yields 
of  straw,  grain,  and  roots  in  the  third  crop.  Again,  Little  or  no 
evidence  of  a  toxic  effect  was  noted  in  this  series. 

10.  Results  are  given  on  the  effect  of  the  salts  used  on  the 
nitrogen  content  of  the  grain  produced,  on  the  nitrifying  powers 
of  the  soils  concerned,  on  the  amounts  of  copper  and  zinc  taken 
up  by  some  of  the  barley  plants  in  the  different  series;   and 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  563 

also  correlations  are  drawn  between  some  of  these  factors  and 
the  complete  yields  of  dry  matter. 

11.  Some  practical  and  theoretical  phases  of  the  smelter 
question  are  discussed,  and  the  evidence  above  given  is  employed 
to  show  that  from  the  large  practical  standpoint  the  solids 
of  smelter  wastes  cannot  justly  be  considered  a  menace  to 
agriculture. 

12.  Many  other  points  of  interest  are  discussed  in  connection 
with  the  smelter  problem  as  a  whole  and  with  the  results  of  our 
experiments. 

Transmitted  September  7,  1916. 


564       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 


o   *" 

•a  ft 

O*£o" 

x  —2 
~  — .  o 

D    Sr-T 

50 
50 
100 
100 
200 
200 
300 
300 
400 
400 
500 
500 
600 
600 
700 
700 
800 
800 
900 
900 


21  1000 

22  1000 

23  1100 

24  1100 

25  1200 

26  1200 

27  1300 

28  1300 

29  1400 

30  1400 

31  1500 

32  1500 

33  Control 

34  Control 

35  Control 


•a* 

?■£ 
gm. 
47.8 

37.8 

43.5 

32.0 

47.9 

36.5 

41.6 

39.5 

37.2 

40.8 

38.2 

35.2 

46.5 

47.5 

38.7 

41.0 

50.7 

40.0 

51.2 

40.2 

44.6 

42.5 

35.8 

42.3 

40.0 

42.5 

38.4 

40.8 

42.8 

33.9 

37.2 

38.1 

31.5 

31.2 

34.8 


CuS04  Set 

3 

be 

"3 

^  <** 

2|  -S  a 

<l   O  t>  bn 

gm.  gm. 

42.80  

37.75  

42.20  

40.55  

39.00  

36.70  

47.00  

39.85  

45.35  

45.70  

43.55  

39.05  

41.25  

40.10  

38.35  

37.65  

32.50  


TABLE  Ho 
-First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 

■H  ^    flj    V  .M    nl    O                                                .« 

*  .SP-St:  Ss-g-E      -m           & 

®e  g  g  3  o>  a  3                             o) 

w>.5        £  "  ■«  m  "  m          ■£  fc»^2 

cSbJ  __   **•  o>  «3   >>  q>             ^_                      rt   o 

Sit.  ^s  >-  >  h  K  S            be  ai              ^  X 

>^  1*1  52l     |g      >£ 

gm.         gm.  gm.          gm.          gm. 

47.8  42.80     10.2       9.05 

37.8  7.9 

43.5  37.75       8.7       9.45 

32.0  10.2 

47.9  42.20     10.0       8.25 

36.5  6.5 

41.6  40.55       9.5     10.75 

39.5  12.0 

37.2  39.00       7.9       7.85 

40.8  7.8 

38.2  36.70       9.8       8.50 

35.2  7.2 

46.5  47.00       8.2       8.20 

47.5  8.2 

38.7  39.85       7.0       6.25 

41.0  5.5 

50.7  45.35       7.2       6.45 

40.0  5.7 

51.2  45.70       4.8       5.35 

40.2  5.9 

44.6  43.55       5.5       5.25 

42.5  5.0 

35.8  39.05       3.9       4.40 

42.3  4.9 

40.0  41.25       4.8       4.35 

42.5  3.9 

39.4  40.10       4.2       4.55 

40.8  4.9 

42.8  38.35       3.8       4.30 

33.9  4.8 

37.2  37.65       6.0       4.75 

38.1  3.5 

31.5  32.50       7.8       7.26 

31.2  6.9 

34.8  7.1 


No 
E-i-o  p. 

be       3 
£  Q  p 

rt   ™  £1 

IS 

<^2 

gm. 

gm. 

58.0 

51.85 

+  12.09 

45.7 

52.2 

47.20 

+   7.44 

42.2 

57.9 

50.45 

+  10.69 

43.0 

51.1 

51.30 

+  11.54 

51.5 

45.1 

46.85 

+   7.09 

48.6 

48.0 

45.20 

+  5.44 

42.4 

54.7 

55.20 

+  15.44 

55.7 

45.7 

46.10 

+   6.34 

46.5 

57.9 

51.80 

+  12.04 

45.7 

56.0 

51.05 

+  11.29 

46.1 

50.1 

48.80 

+   9.04 

47.5 

39.7 

43.45 

+   3.69 

47.2 

44.8 

45.60 

+   5.84 

46.4 

43.6 

44.65 

+  4.89 

45.7 

46.6 

42.65 

+   2.89 

38.7 

43.2 

42.40 

+   2.64 

41.6 

39.3 

39.76 

38.1 

41.9 

1917  I 


Lipman-Gerieke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth 


565 


TABLE  lib 
CuSO^  Set — Second  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


CuS04  added  to 
soil  in  parts  per 
1,000,000 

o 

£  t> 
'3  S* 

£ 

M 

'3 

is 

be  £ 
eS  g 

<u  a 

J5*< 
■";  o 

o 

£  „ 

'3  as 

?  So 

£ 
'3 

<   O 

^  x  2 

a>  a  s 
c3  *3  > 

Ho  « 

£    „ 

bfi  ^  ^ 
'3  -2  ss 

£  "S*C 

a)  g  s 

u  u  l. 

O 

A 
fcJD  W 

*S  o 

£ 

.5? 

"3 

ed  o 
?   * 

<!  o 

«4H 

o 

£ . 

.—   V*rj 

ob2 

£    8 

.!?    3 
3  ..  'o' 

<u^  P. 

£■2  3 
3°S 

t>        ej 

^^  a 

—  a> 

IS 

be  °  — 
<*   O)   o 

2  h  x 

>s§ 

•<!'3  o 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

1 

100 

9.90 

10.25 

8.10 

9.55 

17.0 

19.30 

5.0 

5.60 

22.0 

24.90 

+4.20 

2 

100 

10.60 

11.00 

21.6 

6.2 

27.8 

3 

200 

4 

200 

5 

300 

8.15 

7.57 

11.05 

10.02 

19.2 

17.60 

5.5 

5.95 

24.7 

23.55 

+  2.85 

6 

300 

7.00 

9.00 

16.0 

6.4 

22.4 

7 

400 

14.10 

11.10 

10.90 

10.90 

25.0 

22.00 

7.2 

5.85 

32.2 

27.85 

+  7.15 

8 

400 

8.10 

10.90 

19.0 

4.5 

23.5 

9 

500 

13.90 

10.95 

8.10 

8.10 

22.0 

19.00 

5.5 

7.65 

27.7 

26.65 

+  5.95 

10 

500 

8.00 

8.00 

16.0 

9.8 

25.8 

11 

600 

6.10 

8.05 

12.40 

11.20 

18.5 

19.25 

6.0 

6.35 

24.5 

25.60 

+  4.90 

12 

600 

10.00 

10.00 

20.0 

6.7 

26.7 

13 

700 

13.15 

11.75 

11.85 

12.50 

25.0 

24.20 

6.0 

5.10 

31.0 

29.30 

+  8.60 

14 

700 

10.25 

13.15 

23.4 

4.2 

27.6 

15 

800 

8.77 

10.98 

9.23 

9.01 

18.0 

20.00 

9.0 

7.35 

27.0 

27.35 

+6.65 

16 

800 

13.20 

8.80 

22.0 

5.7 

27.7 

17 

900 

15.45 

12.07 

9.15 

8.22 

24.6 

20.30 

7.3 

6.55 

31.9 

26.85 

+  6.15 

18 

900 

8.70 

7.30 

16.0 

5.8 

21.8 

19 

1000 

12.45 

12.16 

15.05 

11.39 

27.5 

23.55 

5.5 

4.85 

33.0 

28.40 

+  7.70 

20 

1000 

11.88 

7.72 

19.6 

4.2 

23.8 

21 

1100 

22 

1100 

23 

1200 

7.45 

9.27 

11.75 

13.73 

19.2 

23.00 

5.5 

5.00 

24.7 

28.00 

+  7.30 

24 

1200 

11.10 

15.70 

26.8 

4.5 

31.3 

25 

1300 

12.75 

10.97 

8.75 

10.02 

21.5 

21.00 

4.9 

4.80 

26.4 

25.80 

+5.10 

26 

1300 

9.20 

11.30 

20.5 

4.7 

25.2 

27 

1400 

12.60 

12.37 

13.20 

12.52 

25.8 

24.90 

5.5 

5.60 

30.3 

30.50 

+  9.80 

28 

14.00 

12.15 

11.85 

24.0 

5.7 

29.7 

29 

1500 

8.45 

8.45 

10.15 

10.15 

18.6 

18.60 

3.2 

3.20 

21.8 

21.80 

+  1.10 

30 

1500 

31 

Control 

6.00 

7.13 

9.20 

9.37 

15.2 

16.50 

4.0 

4.20 

19.2 

20.70 

32 

Control 

8.26 

9.54 

17.8 

4.4 

22.2 

566        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 


TABLE  He 
CuS04  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


o    '- 


CuS04  added 
soil  in  parts  p 
1,000,000 

o 

■iU 

% 

2* 
•  » 

<  o 

o 

•3  _ 

'3  03 

"3 
is 

C3   e3 
0J  fco 

—  —  - 

®  d  3 

&°  £ 

a±  > 

«T3   o 

H  oes 

oj  g  3 

CO    >>OJ 

u  n  > 
"Jos 

O 

be  w 

"3  o 

£2 

OJ 

t-   o 
OJ    U 
> 

<  o 

O 

?   [j   o 

_  g  3 

C3   aT3 
O  h  fi 

.£?     =* 
'53  -  'd 
■sCg 

«  a  K 

aj  .2  -w 
>         C3 

<!   O   S 

~-    OJ 

o° 
»  2 

222 

ft    OJ  -^ 
gig    C 

<'-5  8 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

1 

100 

23.90 

19.45 

2.60 

2.80 

26.5 

22.25 

6.5 

9.75 

33.00 

32.00 

+5.37 

2 

100 

15.00 

3.00 

18.0 

13.0 

31.00 

3* 

200 

18.25 

21.17 

5.75 

4.32 

24.0 

25.50"| 

15.5 

f7.75 

31.75 

33.25 

+6.62 

4* 

200 

24.10 

2.90 

27.0 

I 

34.75 

5 

300 

19.42 

16.71 

2.48 

2.48 

21.8 

17.90 

10.2 

8.35 

32.00 

26.25 

—0.38 

6 

300 

14.00 

14.0 

6.5 

20.50 

7 

400 

14.05 

14.00 

4.45 

4.25 

18.5 

18.25 

11.0 

11.00 

29.50 

29.25 

+  2.62 

8 

400 

13.94 

4.06 

18.0 

11.0 

29.00 

9 

500 

16.36 

16.03 

2.74 

3.52 

19.0 

19.50 

9.0 

8.25 

28.00 

27.75 

+  1.12 

10 

500 

15.70 

4.30 

20.0 

7.5 

27.50 

11 

600 

12.85 

17.72 

1.15 

1.23 

14.0 

18.95 

12.0 

10.60 

26.00 

29.55 

+2.92 

12 

600 

22.60 

1.30 

23.9 

9.2 

33.10 

13 

700 

18.05 

16.35 

3.55 

2.85 

21.6 

19.20 

9.0 

9.00 

30.60 

28.20 

+  1.57 

14 

700 

14.65 

2.15 

16.8 

25.80 

15 

800 

12.30 

15.30 

3.70 

3.20 

16.0 

18.50 

7.8 

6.40 

23.80 

24.90 

—1.73 

16 

800 

18.30 

2.70 

21.0 

5.0 

26.00 

17 

900 

21.20 

20.75 

4.30 

25.5 

25.05 

7.2 

10.60 

32.70 

35.65 

+9.02 

18 

900 

20.30 

4.30 

24.6 

14.0 

38.60 

19 

1000 

17.65 

23.15 

1.85 

2.60 

19.5 

25.75 

10.0 

9.50 

29.50 

35.25 

+  8.62 

20 

1000 

28.65 

3.35 

32.0 

9.0 

41.00 

21 

1100 

15.20 

17.95 

1.80 

1.50 

17.0 

19.45 

9.0 

9.00 

26.00 

28.45 

+  1.82 

22 

1100 

20.70 

1.20 

21.9 

9.0 

30.90 

23 

1200 

14.80 

15.60 

2.70 

2.90 

17.5 

18.50 

5.7 

6.85 

23.20 

25.35 

—1.28 

24 

1200 

16.40 

3.10 

19.5 

8.0 

27.50 

25 

1300 

18.20 

17.95 

3.00 

2.75 

21.2 

20.70 

4.5 

5.25 

25.70 

25.95 

—0.68 

26 

1300 

17.70 

2.50 

20.2 

6.0 

26.20 

27 

1400 

18.90 

20.70 

3.30 

3.30 

22  2 

22.35"! 

15.3 

f7.65 

29.85 

30.00 

+3.37 

28 

1400 

22.50 

22.5 

i 

30.15 

29 

1500 

14.00 

17.65 

4.50 

4.35 

18.5 

22.00 

11.0 

8.05 

29.50 

30.05 

+3.42 

30 

1500 

21.30 

4.20 

25.5 

5.1 

30.60 

31 

Control 

12.40 

16.53 

2.10 

2.25 

14.5 

18.03 

9.8 

8.60 

24.30 

26.63 

32 

Control 

16.20 

2.40 

18.6 

9.0 

27.60 

33 

Control 
*  Second 

21.00 
crop. 

21.0 

7.0 

28.00 

1917J 


Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth 


567 


TABLE  Ilia 
CuS04 — First  Crop — Adobe  Soil 


CuS04  added 
soil  in  parts  p 
1,000,000 

o 

"Sits 
'£  « 

P*  « 
gin. 

1 

100 

9.50 

9 

100 

4.28 

3* 

200 

4.00 

4* 

200 

3.00 

5 

300 

5.90 

6 

300 

2.60 

7 

400 

2.70 

8 

400 

4.15 

9 

500 

5.15 

10 

500 

7.45 

11 

600 

5.05 

12 

600 

4.10 

13 

700 

3.20 

14 

700 

7.15 

15 

800 

4.15 

16 

800 

5.10 

17 

900 

6.75 

18 

900 

8.20 

19 

1000 

2.70 

20 

1000 

3.50 

21 

1200 

4.10 

22 

1200 

5.80 

23 

1500 

2.90 

24 1 

1500 

25t 

2000 

26 

Control 

5.20 

27 

Control 

3.08 

*  Poor 

plants 

t  Nos.  : 

24  and 

a  fe  v  a 

S$        m«  2£ 

£ «       o"3  £  «* 

<<  o          >>  Wi  <!  o 

gin.            gm.  gm. 

4.89          3.72 

3.72 
3.50        

4.25       4.10  4.50 

4.90 

3.43       3.90  4.38 

4.85 

6.30       1.95  2.25 

2.55 

4.53       4.65  4.02 

3.40 

5.18       3.80  3.58 

3.35 

4.63       4.35  3.33 

2.30 

7.43       3.05  3.05 

3.10       1.60  1.60 

4.95       1.90  1.90 

2.90  .60  .60 

4.14       2.20  3.06 
3.92 

due  perhaps  to  location  of  pots 
25 — no  growth. 


O)  d  S 
£  d  m 

«£  t 

+J  'O  o 

Ho  =a 

►  it! 

»  a  3 

^  ^  > 

<   O   C3 

o 

2 

*S  O 

£g 

'53 

03  o 

i1  ° 
<!  o 

c 

£  . 

r  -m  o> 
P  C3  o 

"3  a-§ 

■E    " 

a)"0  p. 

— .  o> 

o3  > 

™S  £ 

<;3g 

gin. 
9.5 

gm. 
8.75 

gm. 
0.80 

gm. 
1.10 

gm. 
10.30 

gm. 
9.85 

+  1.93 

8.0 

1.40 

9.40 

4.0 

3.50 

1.20 

1.00 

5.20 

4.50 

—2.42 

3.0 

.80 

3.80 

10.0 

8.75 

1.40 

1.05 

11.40 

9.80 

+  1.88 

7.5 

.70 

8.20 

6.5 

7.75 

1.20 

1.55 

7.70 

9.30 

+  1.38 

9.0 

1.90 

10.90 

7.1 

8.65 

.85 

1.00 

7.95 

9.65 

+  1.73 

10.2 

1.15 

11.35 

9.7 

8.60 

1.00 

.92 

10.70 

9.52 

+  1.60 

7.5 

.85 

8.35 

7.0 

8.75 

.65 

.75 

7.65 

9.50 

+  1.58 

10.5 

.85 

11.35 

8.5 

7.95 

1.00 

.80 

9.50 

8.75 

+  0.83 

7.4 

.60 

8.00 

9.8 

9.00 

.85 

1.02 

10.65 

10.00 

+  2.10 

8.2 

1.20 

9.40 

4.3 

3.75 

.45 

.52 

4.75 

4.42 

—3.50 

3.5 

.60 

4.10 

6.0 

5.90 

.70 

.70 

6.70 

6.60 

—1.32 

5.8 

.70 

6.50 

3.5 

3.50 

.20 

.20 

3.70 

3.70 

4.  22 

7.4 

7.20 

.95 

.73 

8.35 

7.92 

7.0 

.50 

7.50 

568        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  Ulb 
CuSOj  Set — Second  Crop — Adobe  Soil 


o  b 


«2  —  2 

3  •-  o 


100 
100 
200 
200 
300 
300 
400 
400 
500 
500 
600 
600 
700 
700 
800 
800 
900 
900 

19  1000 

20  1000 

21  1200 

22  1200 

23  1500 

24  1500 

25  2000 

26  Control 

27  Control 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 


t>  % 

gm. 

6.5 
6.0 
7.5 
7.5 
9.0 
8.7 
6.0 
6.5 
8.5 
7.5 
8.8 

10.0 

10.2 
8.5 

10.5 
9.2 
9.5 

11.7 
8.8 
7.0 
7.2 
7.3 

10.0 
8.0 
5.1 
7.0 
7.5 


t-  r<  be  C 

S  <°  "S'3 

<!  o  t>  tm 

gm.  gm. 

6.25 

7.50  

8.85  

6.25 

8.00  

9.40  

9.35  

9.85  

10.60  

7.90  

7.25  

9.00  

5.10  

7.25  


ta.5 
•<<  0 

OJ    rl    ^ 

_,  >» « 

Eh  0  =3 

.Sf u  § 

5  £  cs 
1*  «8  fJ 

fli    fl    H 
fcfi  B    W 

FH  ^  h. 

O 

*S  0 

£2 

p*  0 

>  ^ 

f  so 
Eh-O  0, 

.5?     § 

oj-O  p, 

<i  0  a 

c3  > 

IS 

111 
<J-3  § 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

6.5 

6.25 

0.45 

0.92 

6.95 

7.18 

—1.91 

6.0 

1.40 

7.40 

7.5 

7.50 

1.55 

1.52 

9.05 

9.02 

—0.07 

7.5 

1.50 

9.00 

9.0 

8.85 

1.50 

1.60 

10.50 

10.45 

+  1.36 

8.7 

1.70 

10.40 

6.0 

6.25 

2.55 

2.42 

8.55 

8.68 

—0.41 

6.5 

2.30 

8.80 

8.5 

8.00 

1.95 

1.95 

10.45 

9.95 

+  0.86 

7.5 

1.95 

9.45 

8.8 

9.40 

3.60 

2.95 

12.40 

12.35 

+  3.26 

10.0 

2.30 

12.30 

10.2 

9.35 

2.10 

1.95 

12.30 

11.30 

+2.21 

8.5 

1.80 

10.30 

10.5 

9.85 

1.40 

1.60 

11.90 

11.45 

+  2.36 

9.2 

1.80 

11.00 

9.5 

10.60 

2.00 

2.00 

11.50 

12.60 

+  3.51 

11.7 

2.00 

13.70 

8.8 

7.90 

2.00 

2.75 

10.80 

10.65 

+  1.56 

7.0 

3.50 

10.50 

7.2 

7.25 

1.65 

1.50 

8.85 

8.75 

—0.34 

7.3 

1.35 

8.65 

10.0 

9.00 

1.30 

1.32 

11.30 

10.32 

+  1.23 

8.0 

1.35 

9.35 

5.1 

5.10 

0.32 

.032 

5.42 

5.42 

—3.67 

7.0 

7.25 

1.93 

1.84 

8.93 

9.09 

7.5 

1.75 

9.25 

1917] 


Lipman-Gericl-ce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth 


569 


TABLE  IV 

CuS04 — First  Crop — Oakley  Soil 


O  ^o 
03  _  ° 
3  -~  o 

U-t 

O 

-a 
5 
faJO  5 

o 

S 
.SP.S 

P*  So 

.£? 

&>.H 
<!  o 

lag 

^■o  o 

A 

?  a  ^ 

O 

be  W 

0J   o 

£2 

A 

<!  o 

o 

03   S-3 

|Cg 

5      " 

•*-      <l> 
so      3 
'S  .t3 

p  eg 

£  o  :£ 

*-£  S 

<!  o  S 

a  > 

IS 

1 

100 

gm. 

4.78 

gm. 
4.52 

gm. 
1.72 

gm. 

1.79 

gm. 
6.5 

gm. 
6.30 

gm. 

2.10 

gm. 
1.85 

gm. 
8.60 

gm. 

8.15 

4-2.15 

2 

100 

4.25 

1.85 

6.1 

1.60 

7.70 

3 

200 

3.68 

3.43 

2.32 

2.52 

6.0 

5.95 

2.70 

2.40 

8.70 

8.35 

+  2.35 

4 

200 

3.17 

2.73 

5.9 

2.10 

8.00 

5 

300 

3.90 

3.80 

2.30 

2.40 

6.2 

6.20 

1.30 

1.10 

7.30 

7.20 

+  1.20 

6 

300 

3.70 

2.50 

6.2 

.90 

7.10 

7 

400 

2.40 

2.40 

1.60 

1.60 

4.0 

4.00 

.55 

.55 

4.55 

4.55 

—1.45 

8 

400 

.... 

9 

500 

2.90 

2.75 

1.20 

1.30 

4.1 

4.05 

.15 

.15 

4.25 

4.20 

—1.80 

10 

500 

2.60 

1.40 

4.0 

.15 

4.15 

11 

600 

2.85 

3.53 

2.35 

2.67 

5.2 

6.20 

5.20 

6.20 

+  0.20 

12 

600 

4.20 

3.00 

7.2 

7.20 

13 

700 

2.40 

2.80 

1.30 

1.40 

3.7 

4.20 

3.70 

4.20 

—1.80 

14 

700 

3.20 

1.50 

4.7 

4.70 

15 

800 

1.20 

1.20 

1.2 

1.20 

.10 

.10 

1.30 

1.30 

—4.70 

16 

800 

.... 

17 

900 

.20 

.20 

.2 

.20 

.20 

.20 

—5.80 

18 

900 

.... 

19 

1000 

.... 

20 

1000 

.... 

21 

1200 

22 

1200 

23 

Control 

2.80 

3.40 

1.30 

1.30 

4.1 

4.05 

1.60 

1.95 

5.70 

6.00 

24 

Control 

4.00 

4.0 

2.30 

6.30 

570       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    ["Vol.  1 


ZnS04 

Set- 

S  S- 
cTS0" 

Co0- 

o 

11 

P^   CO 

2 

.5? 
'3 
■s 

«  8 
•  « 

<  o 

o 

2  . 

MO 

'3   C3 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

1 

100 

38.9 

37.45 

2 

100 

36.0 

3 

300 

38.9 

36.55 

4 

300 

34.2 

5 

500 

37.4 

39.10 

6 

500 

40.8 

7 

700 

46.8 

40.30 

8 

700 

33.8 

9 

900 

41.4 

41.30 

10 

900 

41.2 

11 
12 

1100 
1100 

41.1 
43.5 

42.30 

13 

1200 

42.2 

41.40 

14 

1200 

40.6 

15 
16 

1300 
1300 

31.2 

31.5 

31.35 

17 

1400 

36.7 

34.85 

18 

1400 

33.0 

19 
20 

1500 
1500 

38.5 
37.7 

38.10 

21 

1600 

37.0 

36.00 

22 

1600 

35.0 

23 

1700 

35.8 

36.80 

24 

1700 

37.8 

25 

1800 

38.7 

38.10 

26 

1800 

37.5 

27 

1900 

43.8 

41.90 

28 

1900 

40.0 

29 

2000 

31.0 

35.60 

30 

2000 

40.2 

31 

Control 

30.2 

33.40 

32 

Control 

36.6 

TABLE  Va 
-First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 

2  2  JA 

.bo  s*  g  U  h  g  .M 

bjD.5        £  **  w  bC  H  to  -£  W)M 

fch       jib  tnt.S:  b»M  hS 

gM  5-dg  «flo  -S-S  »S 
"^  o  E-<  o  cd  <3  o  rt  p-h  ""S  © 
gm.  gm.  gm.  gm.  gm. 
38.9  37.45       8.6       8.55 

36.0  8.5 
38.9  36.55       7.5       7.60 

34.2  7.7 
37.4  39.10       6.5       9.90 

40.8  13.3 
46.8  40.30       8.6     10.60 

33.8  12.6 
41.4  41.30       8.1       8.00 

41.2  7.9 
41.1  42.30       7.7       9.25 

43.5  10.8 

42.2  41.40       8.3       8.50 

40.6  8.7 

31.2  31.35     12.0     12.00 

31.5 
36.7  34.85     10.8     11.15 

33.0  11.5 
38.5  38.10       6.2       7.50 

37.7  8.8 

37.0  36.00     11.3     12.15 

35.0  13.0 
35.8  36.80       9.3     10.60 

37.8  11.9 

38.7  38.10     10.0     10.20 

37.5  10.4 

43.8  41.90     13.0     13.15 

40.0  13.3 

31.0  35.60     10.4     10.85 

40.2  11.3 

30.2  33.40       8.5       8.30 

36.6  8.1 


2  , 

be  >- 
o  t,  t, 

E-i-d  p. 

S  C'g 

aj"3  p, 
^  o  +- 

<  o  a 

-<T3  S 

gm. 

gm. 

47.5 

46.00 

+  4.30 

44.5 

46.4 

44.15 

+   2.45 

41.9 

43.9 

49.00 

+   7.30 

54.1 

55.4 

50.90 

+  9.20 

46.4 

49.5 

49.30 

+   7.60 

49.1 

48.8 

51.55 

+  9.85 

54.3 

50.5 

49.90 

+  8.20 

49.3 

43.2 

43.35 

+   1.65 

43.5 

47.5 

46.00 

+  4.30 

44.5 

44.7 

45.60 

+   3.90 

46.5 

48.3 

48.15 

+   6.45 

48.0 

45.1 

47.40 

+  5.70 

49.7 

48.7 

48.30 

+  6.60 

47.9 

56.8 

55.05 

+  13.35 

53.3 

41.4 

46.45 

+  4.75 

51.5 

38.7 

44.7 

41.70 

1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  571 

TABLE  V6 
ZnS04  Set — Second  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 

■°  o  J3       o  is 

.5?  *»  ■-      3  "3  > 

&  .S?3.h  &£'g  2  a, 

»  ,„  ?Sa  a-^P.  <i>  £ 

m»  £  «  S  »-!,  "£-s 

«  o  _  a  3  ?-2  3  p  £  8 


ZnS04  added  tc 
soil  in  pai'ts  pel 
1,000,000 

© 

11 

3 

Ml 

*s 
Is 

v  fe 

gj 
y  « 

<!  o 

O 

£  _ 

P-  Si 

A 

u 
'3 

M.H 
=3  C3 

i"  u 

>  . 

£S% 

.SPSS 

<a  a  3 

■p'o  o 

°  %-  ^ 

■^  rt  fn 

a*  a  ^ 

<S  O  C3 

o 

"St  73 

1 

100 

gm. 

12.50 

gm. 
12.40 

gm. 
3.50 

gm. 

3.50 

gm. 
16.00 

gm. 

15.90 

gm. 
3.5 

2 

100 

12.30 

3.50 

15.80 

3.6 

3 

300 

8.60 

7.95 

4.40 

4.05 

13.00 

12.00 

6.0 

4 

300 

7.30 

3.70 

11.00 

5.6 

5 

500 

4.82 

4.65 

4.38 

5.05 

9.20 

9.70 

6.3 

6 

500 

4.48 

5.72 

10.20 

3.0 

7 

700 

8.80 

7.84 

6.11 

8.80 

10.90 

4.6 

8 

700 

6.89 

6.11 

13.00 

4.0 

9 

900 

5.80 

5.77 

6.70 

4.98 

12.50 

10.75 

3.0 

10 

900 

5.74 

3.26 

9.00 

5.2 

11 

1100 

4.93 

7.96 

3.07 

3.07 

8.00 

9.50 

4.3 

12 

1100 

11.00 

11.00 

4.5 

13 

1200 

7.65 

7.40 

6.35 

14.00 

13.75 

3.7 

14 

1200 

7.15 

6.35 

13.50 

3.3 

15 

1300 

6.20 

7.55 

4.30 

4.44 

10.50 

12.00 

3.8 

16 

1300 

8.91 

4.59 

13.50 

4.0 

17 

1400 

6.29 

7.66 

4.71 

4.74 

11.00 

12.40 

2.8 

18 

1400 

9.03 

4.77 

13.80 

2.2 

19 

1500 

10.40 

7.92 

4.55 

10.40 

10.20 

2.5 

20 

1500 

5.45 

4.55 

10.00 

3.5 

21 

1600 

5.08 

5.49 

5.72 

4.41 

10.80 

9.90 

3.7 

22 

1600 

5.90 

3.10 

9.00 

3.0 

23 

1700 

5.08 

4.41 

3.42 

4.24 

8.50 

8.65 

3.2 

24 

1700 

3.74 

5.06 

8.80 

2.9 

25 

1800 

6.45 

6.77 

4.05 

3.72 

10.50 

10.50 

2.9 

26 

1800 

7.10 

3.40 

10.50 

3.5 

27 

1900 

6.36 

5.97 

3.04 

2.63 

9.40 

8.10 

1.8 

28 

1900 

4.58 

2.22 

6.80 

3.8 

29 

2000 

6.52 

6.17 

3.46 

3.30 

10.00 

9.50 

2.5 

30 

2000 

5.85 

3.15 

9.00 

2.0 

31 

Control 

7.50 

8.28 

4.70 

5.42 

12.20 

13.70 

2.6 

32 

Control 

9.06 

6.14 

15.20 

3.0 

:«h 


■^"o        E-i-5  c.      <lofl        <S  S 
gm.  gm.  gm. 

3.55     19.50     19.45     +2.95 

19.40 
5.80     19.00     17.80     +1.30 

16.60 
4.65     15.50     14.35     —2.15 

13.20 
4.30     13.40     15.20     —1.30 

17.00 
4.10     15.50     14.85     —1.65 

14.20 
4.40     12.30     13.90     —2.60 

15.50 
3.50     17.70     17.25     —0.75 

16.80 
3.90     14.30     15.90     —0.60 

17.50 
2.50     13.80     14.90     —1.60 

16.00 
3.00     12.90     13.20     —3.30 

13.50 
3.35     14.50     13.25     —3.25 

12.00 
3.05     11.70     11.70     —4.80 

11.70 
3.20     13.40     13.70     —2.80 

14.00 
2.80     11.20     10.90     —5.60 

10.60 
2.25     12.50     11.75     —4.85 

11.00 
2.80     14.80     16.50 

17.20 


572        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  Vc 
ZnS04  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


ZnS04  added 
soil  in  parts  p 
1,000,000 

o 

11 

by 

'S 

Q    b- 

S  g 

»  to 

-5*-' 

o 

'S 

be. 2 

> , 

<!o 

a>  a  3 
H  os 

>  —  — 

>  C4  U 

rt   b,  cb 

■<  o  «s 

«4H 

O 

■sg 

1 
g   O 

^  o 
> 
<  o 

<»>6! 

?  «  o 

—  £  = 

"£  >■  o 
o  t.  M 

H-O  ft 

be        3 

cu^  a. 
1-  •- 

■5"sa 

"a  > 
St 

cj  jy  o 

££■§ 

<j^3  8 

gin. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

1* 

100 

23.74 

21.32 

8.62 

5.36 

32.29 

26.65 

9.5 

9.00 

41.7 

35.65 

+  4.89 

2 

100 

18.90 

2.10 

21.00 

8.5 

29.5 

3 

300 

19.50 

19.70 

2.50 

2.15 

21.90 

21.80 

5.0 

5.65 

26.9 

27.45 

—  3.31 

4 

300 

19.90 

1.80 

21.70 

6.3 

28.0 

5 

500 

20.70 

17.12 

3.80 

2.87 

24.50 

20.00 

5.0 

4.85 

29.5 

24.85 

—  5.91 

6 

500 

13.55 

1.95 

15.50 

4.7 

20.2 

7 

700 

18.32 

17.99 

2.68 

2.52 

21.00 

20.50 

4.8 

4.75 

25.8 

25.25 

—  5.51 

8 

700 

17.67 

2.37 

20.00 

4.7 

24.7 

9 

900 

17.40 

17.05 

1.60 

2.45 

19.00 

19.50 

5.5 

5.05 

24.5 

24.55 

—  6.21 

10 

900 

16.70 

3.30 

20.00 

4.6 

24.6 

11 

1100 

18.60 

17.91 

1.80 

2.29 

20.40 

20.20 

5.7 

5.10 

26.1 

25.30 

—  5.46 

12 

1100 

17.22 

2.78 

20.00 

4.5 

24.5 

13 

1200 

21.75 

20.82 

2.25 

1.62 

24.00 

22.50 

5.0 

4.60 

29.0 

27.10 

—  3.66 

14 

1200 

19.90 

1.10 

21.00 

4.2 

25.2 

15 

1300 

15.75 

13.65 

.75 

1.60 

16.50 

15.25 

4.5 

4.50 

21.0 

19.75 

—11.01 

16 

1300 

11.55 

2.45 

14.00 

4.5 

18.5 

17 

1400 

15.15 

16.55 

.85 

.75 

16.00 

17.30 

4.0 

4.00 

20.0 

21.30 

—  9.46 

18 

1400 

17.95 

.65 

18.60 

22.6 

19 

1500 

14.35 

12.90 

3.15 

2.10 

17.40 

15.00 

5.5 

4.25 

22.9 

19.25 

—11.51 

20 

1500 

11.55 

1.05 

12.60 

3.0 

15.6 

21 

1600 

14.55 

13.72 

2.55 

2.40 

17.10 

16.15 

5.5 

5.15 

22.6 

21.30 

—  9.46 

22 

1600 

12.90 

2.30 

15.20 

4.8 

20.0 

23 

1700 

9.98 

13.45 

1.02 

1.52 

11.00 

15.00 

3.5 

4.00 

15.0 

19.00 

—11.68 

24 

1700 

16.93 

2.03 

19.00 

4.5 

23.0 

25 

1800 

12.75 

13.00 

1.25 

1.25 

14.00 

14.25 

3.0 

2.70 

17.0 

16.95 

—13.73 

26 

1800 

13.25 

1.25 

14.50 

2.4 

16.9 

27 

1900 

13.80 

13.34 

2.50 

2.06 

16.30 

15.40 

2.4 

2.35 

18.7 

17.75 

—13.01 

28 

1900 

12.88 

1.62 

14.50 

2.3 

16.8 

29 

2000 

11.56 

11.17 

2.44 

1.67 

14.00 

21.85 

2.0 

2.65 

16.0 

15.75 

—15.01 

30 

2000 

10.79 

0.91 

11.70 

3.3 

15.5 

31 

Control 

16.50 

20.03 

2.10 

2.25 

18.60 

21.53 

10.5 

9.23 

29.1 

30.76 

32 

Control 

22.10 

2.40 

24.50 

8.2 

32.7 

33 

Control 

21.50 

21.50 

9.0 

30.5 

*  Contaminated 

by  rain 

1917] 


Lipman-Gericlce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth 


573 


TABLE  Via 
FeSO,  Set — First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 


0.1 
0.1 
0.2 
0.2 
0.3 
0.3 
0.4 
0.4 
0.5 
0.5 
0.6 
0.6 
0.7 
0.7 
0.8 
0.8 
0.9 
0.9 
1.0 
1.0 


21  Control 

22  Control 


sc& 

°  g 
fc-B 

gm. 

40.0 

39.9 

39.7 
31.2 
43.7 
36.9 
41.0 
38.8 
34.0 
36.5 
38.5 
39.7 
28.2 
44.4 
32.8 
43.6 
37.1 
36.5 
38.7 
41.0 
34.8 
30.2 


gj  -Sa 

2 »  "5 '3 

<!  o  p-  so 

em.  gm. 

39.95  

35.45  

40.30  

39.90  

35.25  

39.10  

36.30  

38.20  

36.80  

34.85  

32.50  


be 

I 
SJC.S 

u  u 
»  SD 

%•" 

;s2rt 
las 

-  z.  > 

-J--3  o 

E-1  c  s 

"Sit.  « 

'5  2  a 

^     GS     Sh 

«  a  2 

be  n  to 

g&s 

O 

he  w 

£g 

an 
"as 

60  ■» 

«a.= 

oC'g 

bD       § 

'3    U.T3 

<:^  a 

—     - 

C3   S"   O 
^   J-   ^ 

•aJ'-S  S 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

40.0 

39.95 

10.6 

9.05 

50.6 

49.00 

+8.20 

39.9 

7.5 

47.4 

39.7 

35.45 

6.0 

7.20 

45.7 

42.65 

+  1.85 

31.2 

8.4 

39.6 

43.7 

40.30 

7.0 

9.45 

50.0 

49.75 

+  8.95 

36.9 

11.9 

48.8 

41.0 

39.90 

6.3 

8.65 

47.3 

48.55 

+  7.85 

38.8 

11.0 

49.8 

34.0 

35.25 

9.2 

8.40 

43.2 

43.65 

+  2.85 

36.5 

7.6 

44.1 

38.5 

39.10 

9.7 

8.50 

48.2 

47.60 

+  6.80 

39.7 

7.3 

47.0 

28.2 

36.30 

13.4 

9.60 

41.6 

45.90 

+5.10 

44.4 

5.8 

50.2 

32.8 

38.20 

4.2 

5.65 

37.0 

43.85 

+  3.05 

43.6 

7.1 

50.7 

37.1 

36.80 

6.9 

6.70 

44.0 

43.50 

+  2.70 

36.5 

6.5 

43.0 

28.7 

34.85 

5.9 

6.35 

34.6 

41.20 

+  0.40 

41.0 

6.8 

47.8 

34.8 

32.50 

8.5 

8.30 

43.3 

40.80 

30.2 

8.1 

38.3 

574        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  VI6 

FeS04  Set — Second  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 


-§  as 

m  ~  p. 


0.1 
0.1 
0.2 
0.2 
0.3 
0.3 
0.4 
0.4 
0.5 
0.5 
0.6 
0.6 
0.7 
0.7 
0.8 
0.8 
0.9 
0.9 
1.0 
1.0 


be  ? 
«  ? 
£l 

gm. 

11.20 
6.47 
9.90 
6.75 
9.30 
5.50 
9.45 
6.82 


21  Control 

22  Control 

23  Control 


<J   O 

em. 
8.83 


8.32 


7.40 


8.13 


^  5> 
gm. 

2.60 
7.73 
6.50 
6.45 
6.50 
4.50 
4.55 
5.48 


be. 5  fe  "  w 

C3   ci  _1   >.  <D 

«  be  St3  O 

>^,  0^^3 

<l  o  En  o  <« 

gm.  gm. 

5.16  13.80 


cd  a  3 

be  "  « 

-    -  . 

""O  O 

<;  o  « 


0)  o 

£2 


to  is 
^  o 


Sic 
-  P  = 


■„_        o 


<!  o       SH-ci  p.     <! 


t»,„ 


gm.         gm. 

14.00     4.3 


gm. 

4.90 


14.20  5.5 

6.47     16.40  14.80     4.7 

13.20  5.2 

5.50     15.80  12.90     4.7 

10.00  6.0 

5.01     14.00  13.15     3.0 

12.30  3.2 


gm.  gm. 

18.10     18.90 

19.70 


4.95     21.10     19.75 

18.40 
5.35     20.50     18.25 

16.00 
3.10     17.00     16.25 

15.50 


8.25 
6.90 
8.08 
6.27 
6.40 
8.50 
5.90 


6.80 
5.40 


7.30 

8.06 

12.20 


8.25     6.75     6.75     15.00  15.00     3.5  3.50     18.50     18.50 

7.49     4.30     4.16     11.20  11.65     3.5  3.60     14.70     15.25 

4.02                12.10  3.7                L5.80 

6.33     5.03     6.06     11.30  12.40     3.0  3.00     14.30     15.40 

7.10                13.50  3.0                 16.50 

7.20     6.50     4.05     15.00  11.20     2.7  2.40     17.70     13.60 

1.60                  7.50  2.1                   9.60 

6.80  6.80     2.5  2.50       9.30       9.30 

5.40     1.10     1.10       6.50  6.50     2.5  2.50       9.00       9.00 

7.68     4.70     5.42     12.00  13.13     2.0  3.60     14.00 

6.14                15.20  4.4                 19.60     16.73 

12.20  4.4                 16.60 


t§3 


+2.17 
+3.02 
+  1.52 
—0.48 

+  1.77 
—1.48 

—1.33 

3.13 


-7.43 
-7.73 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  575 

TABLE  Vic 
FeS04  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


be  be  ^h* 

wM  "3  '3  ££« 

*  «h  £  .SfS*C 


_,  i>  a  3       o>  o  3  °  <D 

£  "  w      So"  w  -£  bc« 


o 

.5?      § 

re  > 

£ . 

Q)    .    fl 

*f  o 

to  ^ 

a, -a  p 

«  £  3 
3  o« 

°  «, 

&  re  a 

g£2 

>S  C 

<J-5  8 

E-"d  p. 

O.SS  M*  gS         "Sa  gg        _£»  g£-»         -5,M  gg 

-1*  S2  £«       gg  ?«       ■§£  8  ?^o       g|  ££ 

fc   «:  o  l>  on  <!  o          l>  bi  «;  o          Bo«  <los          f>  t,  •<  o 

gm.  gm.          gm.  gm.           gm.  gra.          gm.  gm.        gm.          gm. 

1  0.1  19.00     17.55      0.47       19.0  19.90       7.0  7.50     26.0     27.40     —  3.15 

2  0.1  16.10  4.70  20.8  8.0  28.8 

3  0.2  20.05  17.80     1.85  3.05       21.9  20.85       8.2  8.10     29.9     28.95     —  1.60 

4  0.2  15.55  4.25  19.8  8.0  28.0 

5  0.3  13.75  14.27     5.65  4.82       19.4  19.60       4.4  4.80     23.8     24.40     —  6.15 

6  0.3  15.80  4.00  19.8  5.2  25.0 

7  0.4  20.70  19.17     4.80  4.07       25.5  23.75       5.8  6.40     31.3     30.15     —  0.40 

8  0.4  18.65  3.35  22.0  7.0  29.0 

9*        0.5  34.80     25.87      4.05       34.8  27.90       4.0  6.75     38.8     34.65     +   4.10 

10  0.5  16.95  4.05  21.0  9.5  30.5 

11  0.6  14.45  13.87  4.55  4.12   19.0  18.00   5.0  5.40  24.0  23.40  —  7.15 

12  0.6  13.30  3.70  17.0  5.8  22.8 

13  0.7  25.62  23.31  4.40  4.10   30.2  27.50   6.2  8.75  36.4  36.35  +  5.85 

14  0.7  21.00  3.80  24.8  11.5  36.3 

15  0.8  31.90  27.41  2.60  3.23   34.5  30.65   6.0  8.15  40.5  38.80  +  8.25 

16  0.8  22.93  3.87  26.8  10.3  37.1 

17  0.9  28.90  21.52     2.30  4.57       31.2  26.10       6.7  7.00     37.9     33.10     +   2.55 

18  0.9  14.15  6.85  21.0  7.3  28.3 

19  1.0  20.10  27.60     8.90  7.40       29.0  35.00       9.7  8.95     38.7     43.95     +13.40 
20*        1.0  35.10  5.90  41.0  8.2  49.2 

21  Control  22.40  19.30     2.10  2.25       24.5  21.55       7.5  9.00     32.0     30.55 

22  Control  16.20  2.40  18.6  10.5  29.1 
*  Failed  to  grow  second  crop. 


576        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  Vila 
PbS04  Set — First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7* 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
18 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 


o  u 
■S   id 


•3  S° 
m  '-.2 


200 

200 

300 

300 

400 

400 

500 

500 

600 

600 

700 

700 

800 

800 

900 

900 
1000 
1000 
1100 
1100 
1200 
1200 
1300 
1300 
1400 
1400 
1500 
1500 
Control 
Control 


SI 


>  Z 


"5i& 

em. 
16.5 

25.5 

19.5 

23.1 

21.3 

23.1 

18.4 


22.2 
24.4 
24.0 
23.2 
26.8 
17.0 
26.8 
30.3 
22.0 
21.5 
18.2 
28.5 
21.9 
26.0 
23.8 
27.9 
25.0 
18.2 
17.8 
26.7 
34.8 
25.2 


u  i*  sua 

s«  -3-3 

<J  o  >  tn 

gm.  em- 

21.00  

21.30  

22.20  

18.40  

23.30  

23.60  

21.90  

28.55  

21.75  

23.35  

23.95  

25.85  

21.60  

22.25  

30.00  


s 

.5? 
'3 
•£ 

SlO.5 
>-   U 
%  M 

-SF"3*S 

'Sd  ^ 
&  O  a 

EH  0  a 

2 

55   C3   t. 

a>  a  s 

CS   >>« 

-    -     . 

<!  0  « 

0 

Mm 

£2 

60 

CD 
^  O 

0 
S . 

?  a  0 

O  t.  s- 

.      "<3 
"5)        g 

'3  ^^ 

<D^>  p. 

cs  =f  3 

3  OS 
>^  a 

<  0  a 

—    Oi 

si  > 

£,£_ 
«  £  g 

t»<H  5 

<J-i3  g 

gm. 

gm. 
16.5 

25.5 

gm. 
21.00 

gm. 

4.4 

4.4 

gm. 
4.40 

em. 
20.9 

29.9 

em. 
25.40 

—14.95 

19.5 

21.30 

5.1 

4.05 

24.6 

25.35 

—15.00 

23.1 

3.0 

26.1 

21.3 

22.20 

5.2 

4.75 

26.5 

26.95 

—13.40 

23.1 

4.3 

27.4 

18.4 

18.40 

3.8 

3.80 

22.2 

22.20 

—18.15 

22.2 

23.30 

3.2 

2.80 

25.4 

26.10 

—14.25 

24.4 

2.4 

26.8 

24.0 

23.60 

4.0 

3.00 

28.0 

26.60 

—13.75 

23.2 

2.0 

25.2 

26.8 

21.90 

6.8 

4.40 

33.6 

26.30 

—14.05 

17.0 

2.0 

19.0 

26.8 

28.55 

3.8 

4.20 

30.6 

32.75 

—  7.60 

30.3 

4.6 

34.9 

22.0 

21.75 

5.4 

3.95 

27.4 

25.70 

—14.65 

21.5 

2.5 

24.0 

18.2 

23.35 

5.3 

5.40 

23.5 

28.75 

—11.60 

28.5 

5.5 

34.0 

21.9 

23.95 

3.6 

4.55 

25.5 

28.50 

—11.85 

26.0 

5.5 

31.5 

23.8 

25.85 

6.8 

4.40 

30.6 

30.25 

—10.10 

27.9 

2.0 

29.9 

25.0 

21.60 

2.9 

3.55 

27.9 

25.15 

—15.20 

18.2 

4.2 

22.4 

17.8 

22.25 

1.8 

2.50 

19.6 

24.75 

—15.60 

26.7 

3.2 

29.9 

34.8 

30.00 

6.5 

10.35 

41.3 

40.35 

25.2 

14.2 

39.4 

Poor  plants. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  577 

TABLE  Vllb 

PbS04  Set — Second  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


o    t. 


T3    O.  to  bl  t,  g  Mfc,  g  bn                                         l«       j         -;» 

o.sg  •&*  -g    ■&«   gg  .-*»  g>»»    -a.  go      Srg     g||    ggg 

ft  >h  ;>«  <!o        P-tui      "So  Hos  <  o  «        t>fc.  <<  o         Hfla         <oc        <3-ao 

gm.  gm.       gm.      gm.  gm.  gm.          gm.  gm.          gm.  gin. 

1*  200  8.0  7.00     8.0  7.00       2.0  2.50       10.0         9.50     —8.70 

2*  200  6.0  6.0  3.0  9.0 

3  300  19.5  20.25     19.5  20.25       6.2  4.85       25.7       25.10     +6.90 

4  300  21.0  21.0  3.5  24.5 

5*  400  6.5  8.00     6.5  8.00       2.5  2.25         9.0       10.25     —9.95 

6*  400  9.5  9.5  2.0  11.5 

7  500  22.0  17.00     22.0  17.00       3.0  3.90       25.0       20.90     +2.70 

8*  500  12.0  12.0  4.8  16.8 

9  600  22.6  21.50  22.6  21.50   3.1  3.65   25.7   24.70  +6.50 

10  600  19.5  19.5  4.2  23.7 

11*  700  11.0  13.70  11.0  13.70   2.1  2.80   13.1   16.50  —1.70 

12  700  16.4  16.4  3.5  19.9 

13  800  16.2  14.60  16.2  14.60   3.2  2.95   19.4   17.55  —1.65 

14  800  13.0  13.0  2.7  15.7 

15  900  14.2  14.10  14.2  14.10   4.0  3.00   18.2   17.10  —1.10 

16  900  14.0  14.0  2.0  16.0 

17  1000  15.4  16.20  15.4  16.20   2.9  2.70   18.3   18.90  +0.70 

18  1000  17.0  17.0  2.5  19.5 

19  1100  11.0  10.75  11.0  10.75   2.7  2.00   13.7   12.75  +5.45 

20  1100  10.5  10.5  1.3  11.8 

21  1200  19.8  18.20  19.8  18.20   2.4  2.20   22.2   20.40  +2.20 

22  1200  16.6  16.6  2.0  18.6 

23  1300  14.8  15.80  14.8  15.80   2.7  2.45   17.5   18.25  +0.05 

24  1300  16.8  16.8  2.2  19.0 

25  1400  21.0  19.00  21.0  19.00   3.0  4.00   24.0   23.00  +4.80 

26  1400  17.0  17.0  5.0  22.0 

27  1500  16.4  14.90  16.4  14.90   2.2  2.65   18.6   17.55  —0.65 

28  1500  13.4  13.4  3.1  16.5 

29  Control  15.2  14.00     15.2  14.00       4.4  4.20       19.6       18.20 

30  Control  12.8  12.8  4.0  16.8 

*  Plants  partly  damaged  by  mice. 


578        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  VIIc 
PbS04  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


PbS04  added  to 

soil  in  parts  per 
1,000,000 

o 
■g  £ 

2 

to 
'S 
is 

^-  is 

a  x 
<  o 

o 

J3  _ 

.Ef.S 

'3 

?  a 

es  a 

£  °  & 
—  b  u 

*j-B  o 

Sis 

>   83   U 

®  a  ^ 

hj)  B  to 
c3  >.  a 

U    U    b. 

".OS 

O 
bJC  OT 

S 

% 

<~  O 

O 

2   . 
bis  *■• 

P  ce  u 
Oft. 

Ml        g 

te  C'O 
aj-O  p. 

<  o  a 

—     - 

t° 

£So 

1 

200 

em. 
16.20 

gm. 
15.10 

gm. 
2.30 

gm. 
2.30 

gm. 
18.5 

gm. 
16.25 

gm. 
8.0 

gm. 
8.00 

gm. 
26.5 

gm. 

24.25 

—  4.32 

2 

200 

14.00 

1.4 

8.0 

22.0 

3 

300 

15.70 

17.45 

2.30 

2.30 

18.0 

19.75 

7.2 

7.15 

25.2 

26.85 

—  1.67 

4 

300 

19.20 

2.30 

21.5 

7.1 

28.6 

5* 

400 

9.80 

11.70 

2.40 

2.15 

12.2 

13.85 

4.2 

3.80 

16.4 

17.65 

—10.92 

6* 

400 

13.60 

1.90 

15.5 

3.4 

18.9 

7 

500 

24.30 

24.35 

1.90 

2.15 

26.2 

26.50 

6.9 

7.95 

33.1 

34.45 

+  5.88 

8 

500 

24.40 

2.40 

26.8 

7.0 

33.8 

9 

600 

24.70 

24.60 

24.7 

24.60 

5.7 

7.75 

30.4 

32.35 

+  3.78 

10 

600 

24.50 

24.5 

9.8 

34.3 

11 

700 

20.90 

20.25 

4.00 

4.00 

24.9 

22.75 

9.5 

9.15 

34.4 

31.90 

+  3.33 

12 

700 

19.60 

19.6 

8.8 

28.4 

13 

800 

22.35 

21.17 

2.65 

2.65 

25.0 

22.70 

5.9 

6.10 

30.9 

28.60 

+   0.03 

14 

800 

20.00 

20.0 

6.3 

26.3 

15 

900 

18.80 

20.67 

5.60 

4.27 

24.4 

24.95 

5.8 

7.80 

32.2 

33.75 

+  5.18 

16 

900 

22.55 

2.95 

25.5 

9.8 

35.3 

17 

1000 

19.72 

20.63 

2.48 

2.82 

22.2 

23.45 

7.0 

7.00 

29.2 

30.45 

+   1.88 

18 

1000 

21.55 

3.15 

24.7 

7.0 

31.7 

19 

1100 

29.22 

25.37 

4.67 

3.06 

33.9 

28.45 

9.0 

6.60 

40.5 

35.05 

+   6.48 

20 

1100 

21.55 

1.45 

23.0 

4.2 

29.6 

21 

1200 

21.05 

21.07 

3.25 

3.22 

24.3 

24.30 

7.0 

7.25 

31.3 

31.55 

+  2.98 

22 

1200 

21.10 

3.20 

24.3 

7.5 

31.8 

23 

1300 

20.77 

18.76 

5.03 

3.14 

25.8 

21.90 

6.8 

5.90 

31.6 

27.80 

—  0.77 

24 

1300 

16.75 

1.25 

18.0 

6.0 

24.0 

25 

1400 

17.00 

17.45 

5.00 

4.40 

22.0 

21.85 

7.0 

8.00 

29.0 

29.85 

+   1.28 

26 

1400 

17.90 

3.80 

21.7 

9.0 

30.7 

27 

1500 

16.20 

18.90 

1.50 

1.50 

17.7 

19.65 

4.2 

6.10 

23.8 

25.75 

—  2.82 

28 

1500 

21.60 

21.6 

8.0 

29.6 

29 

Control 

16.50 

18.65 

2.10 

2.25 

18.6 

19.77 

10.5 

8.80 

29.1 

28.57 

30 

Control 

22.10 

2.40 

24.5 

8.2 

32.7 

31 

Control 

14.50 

14.5 

7.5 

22.0 

32 

Control 

21.50 

21.5 

9.0 

30.5 

*  Plants 

partly  damaged  by  mice. 

1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  579 

TABLE  Villa 
Potash  Alum  .Set — First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


u  J3 

d  »  2  M 

s'sS-  ^*     ^S     ^c 

PncSo  t>10  ■<  O  P-to 

gm.        gm.         gm. 

1  300  38.8     39.20     

2  300  39.6 

3  400  38.4     38.30     

4  400  38.2 

5  500  29.6     35.90     

6  500  42.4 

7  600  38.8     39.50     

8  600  40.2 

9  700  36.3     36.50     

10  700  36.7 

11  800  34.4     33.45     

12  800  32.5 

13  900  36.8     39.40     

14  900  42.0 

15  1000  34.2     36.80     

16  1000  39.4 

17  2000  35.5     34.95     

18  2000  34.4 

19  Control  31.5     32.50     

20  Control  31.2 

21  Control  34.8 


s 

5s 

?  d 
M.S 
o3  o3 
h  U 
S>  Ml 

<  o 

«  ">  2 

'3d3 
fe  "  a 

_  h» 
-•°  o 

Hoes 

S 

Mu  g 

2£-£ 

o 

be  to 

II 

2 

o 

P  rt  w 
—  3  = 

2    8 

faC          rj 

'3  .a 

Oi"=   p. 

«i  o  a 

Average  total 
difference  over 
control 

gm. 

gm. 

38.8 

gm. 

39.20 

gm. 
6.6 

gm. 
9.15 

gm. 

45.4 

gm. 

48.35 

+  8.59 

39.6 

11.7 

51.3 

38.4 

38.30 

8.5 

7.80 

46.9 

46.10 

+6.34 

38.2 

7.1 

45.3 

29.6 

35.90 

7.7 

7.00 

37.3 

42.90 

+  3.14 

42.4 

6.3 

48.5 

38.8 

39.50 

7.5 

7.85 

46.3 

47.35 

+  7.59 

40.2 

8.2 

48.4 

36.3 

36.50 

5.5 

7.15 

41.8 

43.65 

+3.89 

36.7 

8.8 

45.5 

34.4 

33.45 

5.7 

5.70 

40.1 

39.15 

—0.61 

32.5 

.... 

38.2 

36.8 

39.40 

6.8 

6.85 

43.6 

46.25 

+  6.49 

42.0 

6.9 

48.9 

34.2 

36.80 

8.0 

7.65 

42.2 

44.45 

+4.69 

39.4 

7.3 

46.7 

35.5 

34.95 

6.1 

5.20 

41.6 

40.15 

+  0.39 

34.4 

4.3 

38.7 

31.5 

32.50 

7.8 

7.26 

39.3 

39.76 

31.2 

6.9 

38.1 

34.8 

7.1 

41.9 

580        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  VIII& 

Potash  Alum  Set — Second  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


Potash  Alum 
added  at  rate 
of  K„0  per  acrs 

o 

■!* 

"3   s 

P-  to 

'3 
tog 

s| 

o 

5.5 

P  d 

u  u 

<!  o 

las 

-a 
tut.  J> 

?    «    V. 

«  a  s 

be  »  w 

h  t-  5. 

>2l 

■<   o"c3 

O 

£ 

'3  o 

£2 

.a 

M.2 

^  o 
«  u 

o 

S  , 
M3 
ir  -«  <u 
P  ee  o 

|&g 
E-i-d  p. 

a;-13  ft 

•<o  a 

U 

_    1 

si 
al- 
>*5 ° 
<j'-3  8 

1* 

300 

gm. 

17.88 

gm. 
13.99 

gm. 

15.12 

gm. 
11.81 

gm. 
33.1 

gm. 

25.80 

gm. 

7.8 

gm. 
6.40 

gm. 
40.8 

gm. 

32.20 

+  11.61 

2 

300 

10.10 

8.50 

18.6 

5.0 

23.6 

3 

400 

8.70 

8.90 

11.80 

11.75 

20.5 

20.70 

6.0 

6.60 

26.5 

27.15 

+   6.56 

4 

400 

9.10 

11.70 

20.8 

7.2 

28.0 

5 

500 

13.70 

11.75 

8.80 

9.40 

22.5 

21.15 

5.0 

6.60 

27.5 

27.15 

+   6.56 

6 

500 

9.80 

10.00 

19.8 

7.0 

26.8 

7 

600 

13.20 

11.35 

8.80 

9.15 

22.0 

20.50 

7.0 

6.75 

29.0 

27.25 

+  6.66 

8 

600 

9.50 

9.50 

19.0 

6.5 

25.5 

9 
10 

700 
700 

9.50 
12.15 

10.82 

7.70 
8.65 

8.17 

17.2 
20.8 

19.00 

7.0 
7.0 

7.00 

24.2 
27.8 

26.00 

+  5.41 

11 
12 

800 
800 

15.90 
7.80 

11.85 

11.10 
8.60 

9.85 

27.0 
16.4 

21.70 

6.8 
8.5 

7.65 

33.8 
24.9 

29.35 

+   8.76 

13 

900 

9.65 

9.85 

10.85 

10.90 

20.5 

20.75 

5.8 

5.80 

26.3 

26.50 

+   5.91 

14 

900 

10.05 

10.95 

21.0 

5.8 

26.8 

15 

1000 

13.30 

12.00 

10.50 

9.50 

23.8 

21.50 

7.5 

7.50 

31.3 

29.00 

+  8.41 

16 

1000 

10.70 

8.50 

19.2 

7.5 

26.7 

17 

2000 

11.00 

10.60 

11.60 

10.90 

22.6 

21.50 

4.0 

4.70 

26.6 

26.20 

+  5.61 

18 

2000 

10.20 

10.20 

20.4 

5.4 

25.8 

19 

Control 

5.66 

7.05 

9.54 

9.29 

15.2 

16.33 

4.0 

4.26 

19.2 

20.59 

20 

Control 

8.48 

9.32 

17.8 

4.4 

22.2 

21 

Control 

7.00 

9.00 

16.0 

4.4 

20.4 

*  Contaminated  by  rain  water. 


1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  581 

TABLE  VIIIc 
Potash  Alum  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


CD    O 


13« 


— 


I  =3 
^   ^    CD  «*h  £  *m  p 


ObD.S 


CD    t> 
be  > 

■*£t3PH 

,? -a «-,  fe-E  j; *h        >  fj      s  ■■ 

woo  p-ta  <  o           >>  M       <!' 

gm.  gm.         gm.       gm. 

1       300  14.03  15.51      2.78 

2.       300  16.72  2.78 

3  400  12.65  12.70     1.85     2.05 

4  400  12.75  2.25 

5  500  11.88  11.29     1.32     2.31 

6  5.00  10.70  3.30 

7  600  12.44  14.64     1.76     2.20 

8  600  16.85  2.65 

9  700  12.00  11.25      

10  700  10.50 

11  800  15.50  14.62      1.45 

12  800  13.75  1.45 

13  900  11.70  11.54  1.20  2.64 

14  900  11.38  4.08 

15  1000  12.50  12.67  2.10  1.92 

16  1000  21.85  1.75 

17  2000  13.60  15.32  2.40  2.62 

18  2000  17.05  2.95 

19  Control  19.40  16.70     2.10     2.25 

20  Control  16.20  2.40 

21  Control  14.50 


sis 

.JfS"C 

gag 

__   >>  CD 

«ii  > 

J2 

■ssS 

®  a  ^ 

c3  >»  <u 

h  h  > 

<!   O  C3 

■h 

O 

P=2 

% 

CD 

t.  o 

O 

£  rt  o 

*a.g 

H-o  p, 

"5>       g 

o)'e  p. 

CD    R  ^ 

cS  > 

IS 

®  e 

«  p  p 

^  -  a 

gm. 
14.3 

gm. 
16.90 

gm. 

8.2 

gm. 

7.80 

gm. 
22.5 

gm. 

24.70 

—2.73 

19.5 

7.4 

26.9 

14.5 

14.75 

7.3 

6.65 

21.8 

21.40 

—6.03 

15.0 

6.0 

21.0 

13.2 

13.60 

5.2 

4.85 

18.4 

18.45 

—8.98 

14.0 

4.5 

18.5 

14.2 

16.85 

6.0 

5.50 

19.7 

22.35 

—5.08 

19.5 

5.0 

24.5 

12.0 

11.25 

5.7 

6.60 

17.7 

17.85 

—9.58 

10.5 

7.5 

18.0 

15.5 

15.35 

7.5 

7.50 

23.0 

22.85 

—4.58 

15.2 

7.5 

22.7 

12.9 

14.15 

6.7 

6.45 

19.6 

20.60 

—6.83 

15.4 

6.2 

21.6 

14.6 

14.60 

5.2 

4.60 

19.8 

19.20 

—8.23 

14.6 

4.0 

18.6 

16.0 

18.00 

7.4 

6.50 

23.4 

24.50 

—2.93 

20.0 

5.6 

25.6 

21.5 

18.20 

8.2 

9.23 

29.7 

27.43 

18.6 

9.0 

27.6 

14.5 

10.5 

25.0 

582        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  IXo 

MnS04  Set — First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


MnS04  add 
soil  in  part 
1,000,000 

o 

tog 

03  ? 
>. 

o 

£  _ 

.to-2 

S  03 

fS  to 

1 

500 

gm. 

47.5 

gm. 
51.00 

gm. 

2 

500 

54.5 

3 

1000 

54.3 

54.15 

4 

1000 

54.0 

5 

1500 

56.8 

61.90 

6 

1500 

67.0 

7 

2000 

45.6 

44.40 

8 

2000 

43.2 

9 

2500 

49.2 

46.70 

10 

2500 

44.2 

11 

3000 

42.0 

44.75 

12 

3000 

47.5 

13 

3500 

45.7 

40.75 

14 

3500 

35.8 

15 

4000 

39.0 

41.75 

16 

4000 

44.5 

17 

4500 

43.0 

43.00 

18 

4500 

43.0 

19 

5000 

42.0 

45.50 

20 

5000 

49.0 

21 

5500 

42.8 

39.10 

22 

5500 

35.4 

23 

6000 

41.0 

45.85 

24 

6000 

50.7 

25 

Control 

41.1 

41.46 

26 

Control 

43.0 

27 

Control 

40.0 

•5  S2S 

a  a  S  S  3 

to.2  £   H    00 

>  ^  o^,5 

•<1  O  E-l  o  C5 

gm.  gm. 

47.5 

54.5 

54.3 

54.0 
56.8 

67.0 
45.6 

43.2 

49.2 

44.2 
42.0 

47.5 
45.7 

35.8 
39.0 

44.5 
43.0 

43.0 
42.0 

49.0 
42.8 

35.4 
41.0 

50.7 
41.4 

43.0 

40.0 


P   cS   U 
J-  *-.'  £ 

I"- 

<;  o  os 

o 

.c 
bt  to 

£2 

to 

'5 
& 

a> 
to.2 

<  o 

O 

It. 
__  c  = 

03   1™T3 

2-~'2 

&       5 
to      s 

v^  p. 

It*  K 

>  .*"  * 

-   r  S 

—    0> 

IS 
toS„ 

« &  g 

gm. 

51.00 

gm. 

11.5 

12.5 

gm. 
12.00 

gm. 
59.0 

67.0 

gm. 

63.00 

+  10.87 

54.15 

11.5 
13.0 

12.25 

65.8 
67.0 

66.40 

+14.27 

61.90 

13.5 
11.5 

12.50 

70.3 
78.5 

74.40 

+22.27 

44.40 

7.6 
9.0 

8.30 

53.2 
52.2 

52.70 

+   0.57 

46.70 

9.5 
9.7 

9.60 

56.2 
53.9 

55.05 

+   2.92 

44.75 

10.5 
7.5 

9.00 

52.5 
55.0 

53.75 

+   1.62 

40.75 

9.2 
9.7 

9.45 

54.9 
45.5 

50.20 

—  1.93 

41.75 

8.0 

7.5 

7.75 

47.0 
52.0 

49.50 

—  2.63 

43.00 

10.7 
9.0 

9.85 

53.7 
52.0 

52.85 

+   0.72 

45.50 

8.0 
7.0 

7.50 

50.0 
56.0 

53.00 

+   0.87 

39.10 

6.5 
7.1 

6.80 

49.3 
42.5 

45.90 

—  6.23 

45.85 

8.0 
6.7 

7.35 

49.0 

57.4 

53.20 

+    1.07 

41.46 

12.5 

11.0 
8.5 

10.66 

53.9 

54.0 
48.5 

52.13 

1917]  Lipman-Gericlce :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth  583 

TABLE  IXb 

MnSO.  Set — Second  Orop — Greenhouse  Soil 


2  * 
n  p. 
•3* 


J3  .a 

'3  s 


*     °  ■£  M  2          "2             M.E 

nag  1 2  £»        '£  2       "" 

gm.  gin.         gm.        gm. 

1  500  14.05  14.05     3.45     3.45 

2  500  14.05  3.45 

3  1000  16.50  19.45     3.50     3.50 

4  1000  22.40  3.50 

5  1500  13.40  12.95  4.40  4.70 

6  1500  12.50  5.00 

7  2000  13.55  12.94  4.25  3.72 

8  2000  12.32  5.18 

9  2500  11.77  11.89  3.73  3.87 

10  2500  12.00  4.00 

11  3000  13.33  13.32  4.67  4.19 

12  3000  13.30  3.70 

13*  3500     7.50  10.24  3.30  4.41 

14  3500  12.97  5.53 

15  4000  14.67  15.83  2.33  2.33 

16  4000  17.00 

17  4500  12.02  16.80  4.98  4.20 

18  4500  21.58  3.42 

19  5000  13.56  16.53  4.64  4.64 

20  5000  19.50 

21  5500  18.20  18.20  2.50  2.50 

22  5500  

23  6000  21.70  24.03  1.30   .92 

24  6000  26.36  .54 

25  Control  13.08  13.71     5.05     5.16 

26  Control  12.87  4.13 

27  Control  15.17  6.31 
*  One  plant  died. 


-SP'S'S 

~T3  o 

^     „, 

.if*  a 

P  <S  h 

«as 

fcfi  H    CO 

rt  >-,  ta 
S-,  u  > 

<!  o  cS 

o 

£2 

.a 
.£? 

CD 

M.2 
cj  o 

> 

<!  o 

O 

Is* 

No 

~  a  s 

*e  >>  o 

O  t<  H 

H-o  p. 

J3        g 

.5?    3 

4)^   P. 

«  *  3 
"£  2 

«j  o  a 

_    0) 

IS 

2  II 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

17.5 

17.50 

10.5 

10.25 

28.0 

27.75 

—4.39 

17.5 

10.0 

27.5 

20.0 

22.45 

7.5 

9.25 

27.5 

26.70 

—5.44 

24.9 

11.0 

25.9 

17.8 

17.65 

7.5 

6.75 

25.3 

24.40 

—7.74 

17.5 

6.0 

23.5 

17.8 

17.65 

10.7 

12.00 

28.5 

29.65 

—2.49 

17.5 

13.3 

30.8 

15.5 

15.75 

12.5 

11.60 

28.0 

27.35 

—4.78 

16.0 

10.7 

26.7 

18.0 

17.50 

9.7 

9.35 

25.7 

25.75 

—6.38 

17.0 

9.0 

26.0 

10.8 

14.65 

6.5 

8.25 

17.3 

22.90 

—9.24 

18.5 

10.0 

28.5 

17.0 

17.00 

8.3 

9.15 

25.3 

26.15 

—5.99 

17.0 

10.0 

27.0 

17.0 

21.00 

9.5 

7.75 

26.5 

29.00 

—3.14 

25.0 

6.0 

31.5 

18.2 

18.85 

9.8 

7.40 

28.0 

26.25 

—5.89 

19.5 

5.0 

24.5 

20.7 

20.70 

9.2 

9.20 

29.7 

29.70 

—2.44 

23.0 

24.95 

10.0 

7.50 

33.0 

32.45 

+  0.31 

26.9 

5.0 

31.9 

18.13 

18.88 

14.8 

13.27 

32.93 

32.14 

17.0 

13.0 

30.0 

21.5 

12.0 

33.5 

584       University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  IXc 
MnS04  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


MnS04  added  to 
soil  in  parts  per 
1,000,000 

o 
•Sis 

11 

'S 
s 

be  £ 
>  _ 

o 

IS  _ 
.S¥.5 

"3   a 

% 

O 

tn  ~ 

■-    - 

-  bo 
<!  o 

^  *  g 
Si  £ 

aj  c  3 

|S    B    (O 

*^> 

-■°  o 

fc-  o  a 

Average  weight 
of  dry  matter 

above  surface 

o 
'S  "o 

£2 

3 

to 
*S 

boJS 

>r 

<  o 

o 

bo  u 

p  a  o 
a  st3 
o  t.  t, 

Err  P, 

2     S 

'3  .  13 
■tu° 

£X~   , 

g3  : 
<  o  s 

U 

—  <u 

r.  > 

si 

®  c 
a  r — 

*  £  E 
fe  Zz 
g|g  c 

1 

500 

gm. 
11.90 

gm. 
11.90 

gm. 

4.70 

gm. 
4.70 

gm. 
16.60 

gm. 

16.60 

gm. 

1.40 

gm. 

1.40 

gm. 

18.00 

gm. 
18.00 

+  0.57 

2* 

500 

3 

1000 

9.54 

10.02 

3.96 

3.98 

13.50 

14.00 

2.00 

2.35 

15.50 

16.35 

—1.08 

4 

1000 

10.50 

4.00 

14.50 

2.70 

17.20 

5 

1500 

15.76 

13.13 

4.24 

4.67 

20.00 

17.80 

1.50 

1.25 

21.50 

19.05 

+  1.62 

6 

1500 

10.50 

5.10 

15.60 

1.00 

16.60 

7 

2000 

21.30 

17.20 

4.10 

3.50 

25.40 

20.70 

1.40 

1.50 

26.80 

22.20 

+4.77 

8 

2000 

13.10 

2.90 

16.00 

1.60 

17.60 

9 

10 

2500 
2500 

20.15 
15.85 

18.00 

5.85 
3.15 

4.50 

26.00 
19.00 

22.50 

2.60 
2.55 

2.58 

L'S.lill 

21.55 

25.08 

+  7.65 

11 

3000 

17.80 

16.05 

5.00 

3.85 

22.80 

19.90 

1.40 

1.85 

24.20 

21.75 

+4.33 

12 

3000 

14.30 

2.70 

17.00 

2.30 

19.30 

13 

3500 

13.70 

12.95 

4.90 

4.35 

IS. CO 

17.30 

1.50 

2.05 

20.10 

19.35 

+  1.92 

14 

3500 

12.20 

3.80 

16.00 

2.60 

18.60 

15 

4000 

12.25 

12.25 

4.15 

4.15 

16.40 

16.40 

3.50 

3.50 

19.90 

19.90 

+  2.47 

16 

4000 

17 

4500 

12.44 

12.40 

3.76 

3.70 

16.20 

16.10 

2.40 

2.40 

18.60 

18.50 

+  1.07 

18 

4500 

12.36 

3.64 

16.00 

2.40 

18.40 

19 

5000 

12.40 

11.87 

3.20 

3.83 

15.60 

15.70 

3.20 

2.70 

18.80 

18.40 

+  0.97 

20 

5000 

11.35 

4.45 

15.80 

2.20 

18.00 

21 

5500 

9.80 

9.80 

4.40 

4.40 

14.20 

14.20 

2.80 

2.80 

17.00 

17.00 

—0.43 

22 

5500 

23 

6000 

9.64 

12.52 

4.36 

3.48 

14.00 

16.00 

2.10 

2.30 

16.10 

18.30 

+  0.87 

24 

6000 

15.40 

2.60 

18.00 

2.50 

20.60 

25 

Control 

12.25 

12.80 

3.25 

2.73 

15.50 

15.53 

1.40 

1.90 

16.90 

17.43 

26 

Control 

13.30 

2.30 

15.60 

2.30 

17.90 

27 

Control 

12.85 

2.65 

15.50 

2.00 

17.50 

*  Contaminated  t 

iy  leakj 

'  roof. 

1917]  Lipman-Gericke :  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth 

TABLE  X« 
MnCL,  Set — First  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


"**    ft  60  6J3  ^  tn  S  M  Sh    £ 

'O^o  <«  &          >«         £  M'St:  £«t:       >« 

«fto  *J  &  g              -S                   6D.H  £   «   w  M  °  £              -s 

5  -tig  6DP  h-               6Cg             fc,   ^  'Ji.k  ^hS               Uo! 

c^§  jSg  £<°          »g         £<*>  -g-og  Si-Oo          oo 

S  «  ^  P-  w  <qo         P-60       <5o  fc-<  o  <s  <!  o  gs         >>  ^ 

gm.  gm,        gm.      gm.  gm.  gm.          gm. 

1  500  60.0  58.00     60.0  58.00     12.5 

2  500  56.0  56.0  11.0 

3  1000  68.2  73.60  68.2  73.60  13.5 

4  1000  79.0  79.0  10.5 

5  1500  57.2  65.60  57.2  65.60  13.5 

6  1500  74.0  74.0  11.5 

7  2000  37.0  37.55     37.0  37.55       5.9 

8  2000  38.1  38.1  8.0 

9  2500  32.0  35.60  32.0  35.60  12.5 

10  2500  39.2  39.2  11.0 

11  3000  26.0  28.10  26.0  28.10   6.0 

12  3000  30.2  30.2  7.5 

13  2500  25.2  22.10  25.2  22.10   4.0 

14  3500  19.0  19.0  2.5 

15*  4000  20.0  20.00     20.0  20.00       1.0 

16*  4000 

17  4500  14.0  14.45     14.0  14.45       1.5 

18  4500  14.9  14.0  1.1 

19  5000  12.9  12.90     12.9  12.90       1.2 

20*  5000 

21  5500  4.5  6.70     4.5  6.70       1.0       1.05         5.5       7.75     —44.38 

22  5500  8.9  8.9  1.1                     10.0 

23  6000  5.2  3.55     5.2  3.55         .7         .45         5.9       4.00     —48.13 

24  6000  1.9  1.9  .2                       2.1 

25  Control  41.4  41.46     41.4  41.46     12.5     10.66       53.9     52.13 

26  Control  43.0  43.0  11.0                    54.0 

27  Control      40.0  40.0  8.5  48.5 

*  Plants  died  during  growing  period. 


£ 

61  t. 

z.  *-  ^ 

p   CS  V 

-■  a  p 

H-o  p. 

bj)        3 

£  C° 

a; -3  ft 

2 -is 

<  c  a 

—    OJ 
c5  > 

si 

<D    S 

«  t  S 
%&* 

■a) '-5  S 

gm. 
11.75 

gm. 
72.5 

67.0 

gm. 
69.75 

+  16.62 

12.00 

81.7 
89.5 

85.60 

+  33.47 

12.50 

70.7 
85.5 

78.10 

+  25.97 

6.95 

42.9 
46.1 

44.50 

—  7.63 

11.75 

44.5 
50.2 

47.35 

—  4.78 

6.75 

32.0 
37.7 

34.85 

—17.28 

3.25 

29.2 
21.5 

25.35 

—26.78 

1.00 

21.0 

21.00 

—31.13 

1.30 

15.5 
16.0 

15.75 

—36.38 

1.20 

14.1 

14.10 

—38.03 

586        University  of  California  Publications  in  Agricultural  Sciences    [Vol.  1 

TABLE  Xb 
MnCl,  Set — Second  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil 


MnC!2  added  t 
soil  in  parts  pi 
1,000,000 

o 

1! 

'3 
2j 

*     OS 

o 
"3 '5 

'3 

is 

se 

c3  03 
-   U 

oQ 

sis 

a>  a  3 
jH  «  £ 

<*a  > 

-"O  o 
hoe 

^  "St! 

oj  g  3 

2  b" 

u  u  > 

<   O  S3 

O 

3  o 

£2 

%■ 
a> 

60.2 

2  ° 
S2 

<!o 

o 
M^ 

?   C3   O 

_   C   3 

r:  --a 

=  £2 

c-"d  p. 

bti        3 
'3   .   T3 

*^2 

a, -a  a 

rt    rt   *« 

3  «S 

_    0) 

°° 
«  2  2 
-^  8 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

gm. 

1 

500 

14.13 

13.07 

3.87 

3.87 

18.00 

15.00 

8.0 

8.25 

26.00 

2::.25 

—8.89 

2 

500 

12.00 

12.00 

8.5 

20.50 

3 

1000 

12.72 

10.94 

4.98 

4.67 

17.70 

15.60 

8.8 

8.65 

26.50 

24.25 

—7.89 

4 

1000 

9.15 

4.35 

13.50 

8.5 

22.00 

5 

1500 

15.15 

15.60 

4.75 

4.75 

19.90 

20.35 

8.2 

7.70 

28.10 

28.05 

—4.09 

6 

1500 

16.05 

4.75 

20.80 

7.2 

28.00 

7 

2000 

25.08 

23.12 

4.42 

4.73 

2!i..-.(> 

27.85 

6.9 

7.95 

36.40 

35.80 

+3.66 

8 

2000 

21.16 

5.04 

26.20 

9.0 

35.20 

9 

2500 

22.00 

20.15 

5.00 

6.45 

27.00 

26.60 

8.0 

8.50 

35.00 

35.10 

+  2.96 

10 

2500 

18.30 

7.90 

26.20 

9.0 

35.20 

11 

3000 

26.05 

23.55 

3.95 

4.30 

30.00 

27.85 

10.0 

7.60 

40.00 

35.45 

+  3.31 

12 

3000 

21.04 

4.66 

25.70 

5.2 

30.90 

13 

3500 

20.66 

22.83 

1.34 

1.92 

22.00 

24.75 

9.0 

7.75 

31.00 

32.50 

+  0.36 

14 

3500 

25.00 

2.50 

27.50 

6.5 

34.00 

15 

4000 

32.07 

33.04 

.93 

1.46 

33.00 

34.50 

6.4 

6.20 

39.40 

40.70 

+8.56 

16 

4000 

34.00 

2.00 

36.00 

6.0 

42.00 

17 

4500 

30.40 

27.80 

30.40 

27.80 

6.0 

5.70 

36.40 

33.50 

+  1.36 

18 

4500 

25.20 

25.20 

5.4 

30.60 

19 

5000 

29.60 

26.05 

.90 

.90 

30.50 

26.50 

6.5 

5.25 

37.00 

31.75 

—0.39 

20 

5000 

22.50 

22.50 

4.0 

26.50 

21 

5500 

27.03 

28.70 

.47 

.47 

27.50 

29.00 

6.0 

5.50 

33.50 

34.50 

+2.36 

22 

5500 

30.50 

30.50 

5.0 

35.50 

23 

6000 

24.05 

27.04 

.45 

.46 

24.50 

27.75 

6.0 

5.50 

30.50 

33.25 

+  1.11 

24 

6000 

30.03 

.47 

31.00 

5.0 

36.00 

25 
26 

Control 
Control 

13.08 
12.87 

13.71 

5.05 
4.13 

5.16 

18.13 
17.00 

18.88 

14.8 
13.0 

13.20 

;-:2.!»:: 
30.00 

32.14 

27 

Control 

15.17 

6.31 

21.50 

12.0 

33.50 

19171 


Lipman-Gericlce:  Smelter  Wastes  and  Barley  Growth 


587 


TABLE  Xc 
MnCl2  Set — Third  Crop — Greenhouse  Soil. 


MnCl2  added  to 
soil  in  parts  pel 
1,000,000 

O 

lis 

1 

S  S 

<   O 

O 

2  _ 
>  <* 

p-  be 

.a 

'3 

8>.S 

«   bfi 
t>   ™ 

<!  o 

las 

Hoi 

sag 

cj  >.  q> 

t-i  J-<  > 

!"- 

<   O  eS 

O 

£g 

bti 
g 

M.J2 

O 

111 

—  a  ~ 

o  u  t. 
H"e  p. 

rl          & 
"H,         " 
bC         _3 

"S  .   13 

«-3  p, 

M—  . 

«  n  s 

fell 

<!oS 

*3  > 

12 
lis 

£sSe 

1 

500 

gm. 

12.68 

gm. 

12.97 

gm. 

2.76 

gm. 
4.52 

gm. 

17.20 

gm. 
18.40 

gm. 
1.40 

gm. 

1.63 

gm. 

18.60 

gm. 

20.03 

+   2.60 

2 

500 

13.25 

6.35 

19.60 

1.85 

21.45 

3 

1000 

16.46 

15.23 

5.74 

5.12 

22.20 

20.35 

1.75 

1.83 

23.95 

22.18 

+  4.75 

4 

1000 

14.00 

4.50 

18.50 

1.90 

20.40 

5 

1500 

12.36 

12.40 

6.06 

4.61 

18.40 

17.00 

2.30 

2.05 

20.70 

19.05 

+   1.62 

6 

1500 

12.45 

3.15 

15.60 

1.80 

17.40 

7 

2000 

17.60 

17.93 

6.00 

4.87 

23.60 

22.80 

2.20 

2.70 

25.80 

25.50 

+   8.07 

8 

2000 

18.25 

3.75 

22.00 

3.20 

25.20 

9 

2500 

14.02 

13.89 

6.28 

5.56 

20.30 

19.45 

2.70 

2.55 

23.00 

22.00 

+  4.57 

10 

2500 

13.76 

4.84 

18.60 

2.40 

21.00 

11 

3000 

21.30 

16.90 

3.70 

3.40 

25.00 

20.30 

2.00 

2.60 

27.00 

22.90 

+  5.47 

12 

3000 

12.50 

3.10 

15.60 

3.20 

18.80 

13 

3500 

14.64 

18.12 

5.16 

5.18 

19.80 

23.30 

2.30 

2.95 

22.10 

26.25 

+  8.82 

14 

3500 

21.60 

5.20 

26.80 

3.60 

30.40 

15 

4000 

17.00 

18.60 

4.00 

5.10 

21.00 

23.70 

1.00 

1.90 

22.00 

25.60 

+  8.17 

16 

4000 

20.20 

6.20 

26.40 

2.80 

29.20 

17 

4500 

23.00 

20.30 

3.80 

4.10 

26.80 

24.40 

1.20 

1.20 

28.00 

25.60 

+   8.17 

18 

4500 

17.60 

4.40 

22.00 

1.20 

23.20 

19 

5000 

27.70 

24.65 

3.90 

4.15 

31.60 

28.80 

1.80 

1.90 

33.40 

30.70 

+  13.27 

20 

5000 

21.60 

4.40 

26.00 

2.00 

28.00 

21 

5500 

17.36 

16.03 

5.24 

2.97 

22.60 

19.00 

.70 

22.60 

19.35 

+   1.92 

22* 

5500 

14.70 

.70 

15.40 

.70 

16.10 

23 

6000 

26.50 

20.60 

8.90 

6.28 

35.40 

27.70 

.40 

.35 

35.80 

28.05 

+  10.62 

24 

6000 

16.35 

3.65 

20.00 

.30 

20.30 

25 

Control 

12.25 

12.80 

3.25 

2.73 

15.50 

15.53 

1.40 

1.90 

16.90 

17.43 

26 

Control 

13.30 

2.30 

15.60 

2.30 

17.90 

27 

Control 

12.85 

2.65 

15.50 

2.00 

17.50 

*  Contaminated 

by  leaky  roof. 

